Conee v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

Full title: Paul T. CONEE v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Mar 10, 2015

111 A.3d 522 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)

155 Conn. App. 732

Opinion

No. 35878.

03-10-2015

Paul T. CONEE v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

Paul T. Conee, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). Hugh Barber, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, and Nicole Palermo, legal intern, for the appellee (defendant).

PER CURIAM.

Paul T. Conee, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

Hugh Barber, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, and Nicole Palermo, legal intern, for the appellee (defendant).

DiPENTIMA, C.J., and SHELDON and NORCOTT, Js.

Prior report: ––– A.3d ––––, 53 Conn.Supp. 322.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.The plaintiff, Paul T. Conee, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Department of Social Services, rejecting his claim that his benefits under the defendant's Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled program were incorrectly calculated. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) there was substantial evidence to support the defendant's decision, and (2) the defendant did not violate the plaintiff's right to equal protection under the federal and state constitutions.¹

1 The plaintiff also raised a claim for the first time before the trial court that the defendant violated his right to travel under the federal constitution. The trial court declined to review this claim, as it was not raised at the administrative hearing. We also decline to review this claim for the same reason. See Finkenstein v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 192 Conn. 104, 112, 470 A.2d 1196 (1984) (declining to review claim that was not properly raised before board of review).

--------

After examining the record and the briefs and considering the arguments of the parties, we are persuaded that the trial court, Cohn, J., properly dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. The issues raised by the plaintiff were resolved properly in the court's thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision. See Conee v. Dept. of Social Services, 53 Conn. Supp. 322, – –– A.3d –––– (2013). We therefore adopt the court's memorandum of decision as the proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law, as it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Pellecchia v. Killingly, 147 Conn.App. 299, 301–302, 80 A.3d 931 (2013).

The judgment is affirmed.