64 Wall Street, LLC v. City of Norwalk.

2007 Ct. Sup. 482
No. FST CV 04-4000084 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
January 8, 2007

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]


Plaintiff’s motion to reargue is denied.

The court has taken the papers filed in support of the reargument motion and those behind defendant’s opposition thereto and treated the matter as a granting of a request to reconsider, and to rule upon the promissory estoppel issue.

The court’s opinion intended to clearly suggest that promissory estoppel would not lie under the facts of this matter. Apparently, this was not so clear as to suggest to plaintiff that a promissory estoppel was also not being found by the court.

The court’s opinion is consistent only with the propositions that the evidence fails to establish for plaintiff the existence of a “clear and definite promise” and “reasonable reliance on the part of the promisee.”

While plaintiff correctly asserts that promissory estoppel might lie in circumstances where the suggestion of contract fails, it does not appear to this court that these facts present such circumstances.

The key point of failure would reside in the reasonableness of the reliance. In the setting the original opinion described, reliance upon such a gossamer construct, which the court termed illusory, cannot be found reasonable.

As a result, promissory estoppel cannot succeed here, no matter how clear plaintiff’s reliance may have been. CT Page 483