Page 35 - CLT102620

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS OCTOBER 26, 2020 ¦ 35

suffered damages. The breach alleged was pur- Plaintiffs’ Appeal Regarding Zoning
suant to the contract and not of an independent Board’s Granting of Certificate of
duty. Therefore, to be actionable, any alleged tor- Location Dismissed
tious conduct must arise from a breach of duty,
other than one arising from a contractual duty
alone. The court granted defendants’ motion as CASE: Brookside Package, LLC v. City of Bridgeport Plan-
to this count. ning & Zoning Comm’n
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6085147
LAND USE AND PLANNING COURT OPINION BY: Radcliffe
DATE: October 05, 2020 • PAGES: 12
The twelve plaintiffs own and operate liquor
Defendant’s Motion for Summary stores in Bridgeport. After a public hearing,
Judgment Granted in Part in Zoning defendant voted to approve the requested cer-
Case Involving Plaintiff’s Possession of tificate of location for a new package store.
Goats Plaintiffs appealed and the court dismissed
their appeal. The court found that each of the
CASE: Burton v. Pemberton necessary findings was supported by substan-
COURT: Danbury J.D. at Danbury tial evidence in the record, and that the pro-
DOC. NO.: CV-19-5015276S
COURT OPINION BY: Brazzel-Massaro posed use of the building was consistent with
Bridgeport’s Master Plan of Conservation
DATE: October 02, 2020 • PAGES: 16 and Development. The evidence supported a
finding that the use of the property as a pack-
Plaintiff rescued a goat that lived on her prop- age store would not impair the surrounding
erty and later gave birth to additional goats. area and nearby residences would not be im-
After an Animal Control Officer discussed pacted by the establishment. The court held
with plaintiff the need to upgrade the goat that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defen-
shelters, plaintiff did so. Plaintiff was served dant’s granting of the Certificate of Location
with a cease and desist order in 2017, requir- was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.
ing her to comply with zoning regulations re-
garding her allowed capacity of goats. The
Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the order,
but plaintiff did not fix the violation. Defen- PERSONAL INJURY

dant claimed that this zoning violation was Court Denied Defendants’ Motion to
willful and asked the court to issue a perma-
nent injunction enjoining plaintiff from keep- Dismiss Plaintiff’s Negligence Suit for
ing more than nine goats on her property. Lack of an Opinion Letter
Plaintiff filed an answer and special defenses
and the defendants moved for summary judg- CASE: Vitale v. St. Mary’s Hosp.
ment. The court granted the motion in part. COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury
The court granted the motion on the grounds DOC. NO.: CV-15-6027665
of municipal estoppel. The court found that COURT OPINION BY: Roraback
the animal control officer was not an agent of DATE: October 01, 2020 • PAGES: 5
the municipality authorized to make zoning Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence after an in-
enforcement decisions; therefore, he would cident that resulted in plaintiff dislocating his left
have been unable to induce plaintiff into be- shoulder and requiring surgery. Plaintiff alleged
lieving the number of goats she had was al- that his left arm was forcibly twisted when he was
lowed. The court denied defendant’s motion transferred from a treatment table to a gurney.
with respect to the counterclaim, finding that Defendants moved to dismiss because there was
plaintiff ’s affidavit created a genuine issue of no opinion letter filed with the negligence counts.
material fact as to the willfulness of her on- The court denied the motion. The court deter-
going violation. The court noted the actions mined that defendants were being sued in their
that plaintiff took in attempts to remedy the capacities as medical professionals. The incident
violation: she relocated thirty goats; placed took place at an outpatient facility after a doctor
an advertisement regarding goat adoptions; had given plaintiff an injection. The court rea-
and appealed for a land management plan soned that in this case when plaintiff suffered the
that was rejected. injury, the alleged negligence was substantially

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune