15 A.3d 213
(AC 31741)Appellate Court of Connecticut
Bishop, Gruendel and Robinson, Js.
Syllabus
The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants to prevent what they alleged to be negative environmental impacts reasonably likely to result from the sale and transfer of a parcel of real property from the defendant department of public works to the defendant town of Preston. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Thereafter, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for articulation and reconsideration, and the plaintiffs filed an amended appeal with this court. The trial court having thoroughly and correctly addressed the issues that are the basis of the plaintiffs’ appeal, this court adopted the well reasoned memorandum of decision of the trial court as a statement of the facts and the applicable law and affirmed the judgment of dismissal.
Argued January 19, 2011
Officially released March 22, 2011
Procedural History
Action for, inter alia, a declaratory judgment determining whether the Environmental Policy Act applies to the transfer of certain real property, and for
Page 462
other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court Sheldon, J., granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court; thereafter, the court, Sheldon, J., denied the plaintiffs’ motion for articulation and reconsideration, and the plaintiffs filed an amended appeal with this court Affirmed.
David Bingham, pro se, and Robert Fromer, pro se, the appellants (plaintiffs).
Nancy E. Arnold, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant).
Charles L. Howard, with whom was Amber N. Sarno, for the appellee (defendant town of Preston).
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from the sale and transfer of a parcel of real property by the defendant department of public works (department) to the defendant town of Preston (town). The plaintiffs, David Bingham and Robert Fromer, brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 22a-16[1] and 22a-20, [2] to
Page 463
prevent what they allege to be the negative environmental impacts reasonably likely to result from the sale and transfer. The plaintiffs now appeal from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants. On appeal, they claim that the court improperly (1) dismissed a well pleaded complaint without reason, (2) granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and (3) denied their motion for reconsideration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following undisputed factual and procedural history is relevant to our resolution of the claims. On October 13, 2004, the town accepted the department’s offer to sell portions of the site on which the defunct Norwich State Hospital had been operated. In April, 2005, the plaintiffs petitioned the department to declare that the sale and transfer was subject to the Environmental Policy Act, General Statutes § 22a-1 et seq. After the department ruled to the contrary, the plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court, which dismissed the appeal for lack of standing. That judgment was affirmed by our Supreme Court in Bingham v. Dept. of Public Works, 286 Conn. 698, 945 A.2d 927 (2008).
On March 18, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a new, amended verified complaint, essentially seeking to enjoin the sale and transfer pending an environmental impact evaluation pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-lb or, alternatively, to void the sale and transfer agreement, and to issue a permanent injunction to protect the property’s environmental resources. The defendants separately filed motions to dismiss the complaint in April, 2009,
Page 464
on the ground that the claims were not justiciable. Following the filing of objections and replies, the court conducted a hearing on the motions. The court then rendered judgment on November 12, 2009, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its memorandum of decision, the court found that the claims were not ripe for adjudication, that the plaintiffs lacked standing to prosecute them and that the claims were rendered moot by the sale and transfer of the subject property.
After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the trial court thoroughly and correctly assessed the issues that are the basis of this appeal, we adopt the court’s comprehensive and well reasoned memorandum of decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Bingham v. Dept. of Public Works, 51 Conn. Sup. 590, A.3d (2009). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g. Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 464