Once again, we note that appellees' property, in contrast to the property at issue in Aposporos, was always part of the Hamilton Plan. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Connecticut in a later decision, Maritime Ventures, LLC v. City of Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 894 A.2d 946 (2006), limited the scope of Aposporos, declaring that "no renewed finding of blight is required for approval of a modification to a redevelopment plan unless the 'amended' plan resulting from such modification is in fact not merely an amended plan, but a new plan." Id. at 822, 894 A.2d 946. There is no such contention before us.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807-08, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). "The allegations and proof are conditions precedent to the granting of an injunction."
But as Defendant correctly notes, under Connecticut law "[a] party seeking injunctive relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law." Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiffs have not shown what irreparable harm they will suffer from receiving only damages in this case, or explained why that legal remedy is inadequate for them.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807–808, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). “How a court balances the equities is discretionary but if, in balancing those equities, a trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary.”
Although the parties rely on either the inclusion or omission of the phrase "extent of his disability" in different parts of the statute, it is useful first to view these parts within their context of the statute as a whole. See Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 826-27, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). The first two sentences of § 31-294c (b) address the procedure that an employer must follow if it wants to contest "liability to pay compensation. . . ."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807-808, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). The plaintiffs claim that the trial court misinterpreted § 8-253a (1) in denying the requested injunctive relief. Therefore, our inquiry focuses on whether the trial court's decision was based on an erroneous statement of the law.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk , 277 Conn. 800, 807, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). "In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court's ruling.... Reversal is required only [when] an abuse of discretion is manifest or [when] injustice appears to have been done."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Host America Corp. v. Ramsey, 107 Conn. App. 849, 854, 947 A.2d 957 (2008); see also Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807-808, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). The defendants argue that the court lacked the authority to "prohibit private property owners from allowing nonfamily members to use their land for ATV riding or from prohibiting private property owners from advertising that their property is available for such use."
When the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary. Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). The plaintiff alternatively argues that the court abused its discretion in denying its motion to open the April 11, 2006 judgment.
General Statutes § 52-471 provides in relevant part: "(a) Any judge of any court of equitable jurisdiction may, on motion, grant and enforce a writ of injunction ... in any action for equitable relief when the relief is properly demandable ..." "A party seeking injunctive relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law ... A prayer for injunctive relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the court ..." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). "The extraordinary nature of injunctive relief requires that the harm complained of is occurring or will occur if the injunction is not granted.