Opinion
No. CV02-0125928
March 15, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION AND REARGUMENT
In this motion for reconsideration and reargument, the plaintiffs attack — rather vociferously — this court's January 27, 2004 decision dismissing their appeal from the decision of the Colchester Zoning and Planning Commission on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had failed to properly serve the town clerk in accordance with General Statutes § 8-8(f). Having carefully considered the reasoning in that decision, the court finds no justification to alter its conclusion. For that reason, the court denies the plaintiffs' motion. The court also denies the defendants' request that it grant the plaintiffs' motion for the limited purpose of allowing the court to rule on the merits of the appeal, for "[i]t is axiomatic that a court is bound to dismiss a case once it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction." Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184, 191 n. 11, 676 A.2d 831 (1996) (concluding that it was improper for trial court to consider merits of appeal after having determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction).
Joseph J. Purtill
Judge Trial Referee