Summary
In DelMastro v. Liquor Control Commission, 146 Conn. 740, 154 A.2d 241, where the plaintiff appealed from the denial of a liquor permit, and a new statute which would prevent one being granted to a party in his circumstances was subsequently enacted, the appeal was dismissed as moot. Likewise in Roy v. Mulcahy, 161 Conn. 324, 288 A.2d 64, where a change in the regulations regarding police promotional examinations was made after an action was brought for a declaratory judgment determining the eligibility requirements for the examination, the appeal was dismissed for mootness.
Summary of this case from Rosnick v. Zoning CommissionOpinion
Argued May 7, 1959
Decided July 14, 1959
Appeal from the action of the defendant in denying the plaintiff's application for a restaurant liquor permit, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County and tried to the court, Wall, J.; judgment for the defendant and dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
The appellant filed a motion for reargument which was denied.
George F. Carroll, Jr., with whom, on the brief, were John D. Lane, Vincent D. Flaherty and William D. Lane, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Thomas J. Conroy, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Albert L. Coles, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiff appealed in January, 1958, from the denial of his application for a restaurant liquor permit for a restaurant and barroom in a building containing forty bowling alleys on routes in South Windsor. The building is entered through an open foyer from which separate entrances lead to the proposed barroom and the bowling areas. The trial court found the issues for the defendant. After this appeal was taken from the judgment dismissing the appeal, the legislature enacted Public Acts 1959, No. 622, which became effective June 30, 1959. It prohibits the issuance of liquor permits "in any establishment which shares a common entrance with a commercial bowling alley establishment." Under the provisions of this statute, the defendant cannot issue the permit sought by the plaintiff. The issues involved in this appeal are therefore moot and the appeal will not be entertained. Hirsch v. Braceland, 144 Conn. 464, 469, 133 A.2d 898; Reynolds v. Vroom, 130 Conn. 512, 515, 36 A.2d 22.