Town of Monroe v. Ostrosky

Full title: TOWN OF MONROE ET AL. v. SCOTT OSTROSKY

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Date published: Jul 30, 2019

191 Conn. App. 474 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)

215 A.3d 1212

Opinion

AC 40976

07-30-2019

TOWN OF MONROE et al. v. Scott OSTROSKY

Robert M. Fleischer, for the appellant (defendant). Jeremy F. Hayden, with whom, on the brief, was John P. Fracassini, Monroe, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

PER CURIAM.

Robert M. Fleischer, for the appellant (defendant).

Jeremy F. Hayden, with whom, on the brief, was John P. Fracassini, Monroe, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

DiPentima, C.J., and Bright and Beach, Js.

PER CURIAM. The defendant, Scott Ostrosky, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open and to vacate the court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the town of Monroe and several of its agencies and employees.¹ The defendant claims that he did not have notice of and an opportunity to be heard at an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

1 The plaintiffs are the town of Monroe, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Monroe, the Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town of Monroe, and Joseph Chapman, the town of Monroe land use enforcement officer.
--------

The defendant owns property that is located in the towns of Monroe and Newtown. The town of Monroe served two cease and desist orders on the defendant on May 14, 2013, which orders alleged violations of zoning and inland wetlands regulations. The defendant failed to comply, and the plaintiffs served a summons and complaint dated February 20, 2014. In April, 2014, this case was consolidated with the nearly identical case of Newtown v. Ostrosky , Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-14-6041984-S, 2014 WL 4494552.

The cases brought by the towns of Newtown and Monroe, and the towns' various agencies and employees, thereafter shared the same pertinent history in the trial court and in this court. The cases were argued before this court on the same day. Parts II and III of our opinion in Newtown v. Ostrosky , 191 Conn. App. 450, 215 A.3d 1212 (2019), together with the factual discussion therein, fully resolve the issues presented in this case, and no useful purpose would be served by repetition here.

The judgment is affirmed.