DocketNumber: No. CV90 0271210 S
Citation Numbers: 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 2688
Judges: SPEAR, JUDGE. CT Page 2689
Filed Date: 10/11/1990
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On October 27, 1989, plaintiffs applied for a zoning permit to construct a swimming pool on their property. The application was denied on the basis that the pool would exceed the allowed 15 per cent total coverage.
This action was initiated on May 2, 1990 by the plaintiffs seeking an order of mandamus against defendant zoning officer.
The defendant zoning enforcement officer filed the subject motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, citing as grounds that (1) plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in that the plaintiffs did not appeal the zoning decision to the Westport Zoning Board of Appeals, and (2) there is no subject matter jurisdiction in the court due to plaintiffs' failure to file a copy of the complaint with the Westport Town Clerk.
A motion to dismiss is the proper method for the defendant to contest the jurisdiction of the court. Connecticut Practice Book 142 (rev'd. to 1978, as updated to October 1, 1989); Upson v. State,
The defendant argues in support of its motion to dismiss that where a plaintiff has a statutory right of appeal from a decision of an administrative officer, the plaintiff may not bring an independent action on the same matter prior to exhausting the available appeal process. Defendant argues that both Connecticut General Statutes
The plaintiffs argue that an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals would be futile, and that defendant's cited cases are not pertinent since they do not involve actions for mandamus.
"The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy," Cheshire Taxpayers' Action Committee, Inc. v. Guilford,
An order of mandamus will not issue unless (1) the party against whom the order is sought has a ministerial duty to perform imposed by law not involving the exercise of discretion, (2) the party applying for the order has a clear right to the relief, and (3) there is no other remedy. (Citations omitted.
State ex rel. The Newfield Swim Club, Inc. v. Swinnerton,
In the instant case the plaintiffs argue that they have a right to a zoning permit as a matter of law and request an order of mandamus; the defendant argues that the plaintiff has no clear right to the relief and has the remedy of an administrative appeal. "We do not give or define a right nor do we act upon contested rights in a mandamus action." McAllister v. Nichols,
"It is a settled principle of administrative law that, if an adequate administrative remedy exists, it must be exhausted before the superior court will obtain jurisdiction to act in the matter." Connecticut Mobile Home Assn., Inc. v. Jensen's, Inc.,
The plaintiffs argue that pursuing an administrative remedy is futile, and that they will reach superior court eventually. However, the Sterling court said that "we have CT Page 2691 never held that the mere possibility that an administrative I agency may deny a party the specific relief requested is a ground for an exception to the exhaustion requirement." Sterling,
The defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint because of failure to exhaust their administrative remedies is granted. In view of this decision, there is no need to address defendant's second jurisdictional claim.
E. EUGENE SPEAR, JUDGE
Upson v. State , 190 Conn. 622 ( 1983 )
Connecticut Mobile Home Assn., Inc. v. Jensen's, Inc. , 178 Conn. 586 ( 1979 )
State, the Newfield Swim Club, Inc. v. Swinnerton , 22 Conn. Super. Ct. 336 ( 1960 )
Chamber of Commerce of Greater Waterbury, Inc. v. Murphy , 179 Conn. 712 ( 1980 )
Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Fairfield Chrysler-Plymouth, ... , 180 Conn. 223 ( 1980 )