706 A.2d 1391

ZONING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWN OF REDDING ET AL. v. RAYMOND PLUNSKE

(AC 15312)Appellate Court of Connecticut

O’Connell, C.J., and Landau and Hennessy, Js.

Argued March 2, 1998

Officially released April 14, 1998

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Action for an injunction to compel the defendant to comply with certain zoning regulations, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, where the court, W. Sullivan, J., granted the plaintiffs’ application for a temporary injunction; thereafter, the matter was tried to the court, Mihalakos, J.; judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appealed to this court Affirmed.

Nancy Burton, for the appellant (defendant).

James T. Shearin, with whom, on the brief, was Christian LeBrun, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is the defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s judgment issuing an injunction that

Page 423

ordered the defendant to maintain his property in compliance with the zoning laws of the town of Redding. The trial court also imposed a monetary penalty on the defendant and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.

We have fully reviewed the record and briefs and considered the oral arguments of the parties. The trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence and the inferences that reasonably may be drawn therefrom. Having applied the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conformed to the applicable law. No novel principles of law or appellate procedure are involved in this case and to discuss the defendant’s claims at length would serve no useful purpose. See Byrne v. Trice, 170 Conn. 442, 442-43, 365 A.2d 1063 (1976); Benlock v. New Haven Terminal/Cilco Terminal, 48 Conn. App. 250, ___ A.2d ___ (1998).

The judgment is affirmed.