Opinion
No. CV 06 4011133S
June 22, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
This is an appeal from an order of the city of New Haven that the plaintiff remediate the toxic levels of lead paint at 24 Maltby Place in New Haven. This order was subsequently appealed to the Connecticut Department of Public Health, pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-229. The Department issued its final decision on May 24, 2006. An administrative appeal was subsequently brought to the Superior Court.
The defendants have moved to dismiss on the ground of aggrievement and the city has submitted an uncontroverted affidavit that it has released its order regarding lead paint. Further there is no dispute that the plaintiff no longer owns the premises in question. Finally the city's affidavit states that it "can not and will not bring any civil or criminal action nor impose any civil or criminal penalties against the plaintiff as the Lead paint Order . . . has been released."
The issue of aggrievement in this case may be analyzed in terms of whether the administrative appeal is moot. See Bieder v. State Ethics Commission, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV 96 055 8901 (June 5, 1996, Maloney, J.) Here the plaintiff has not denied that she does not own the residence and that the lead paint order has been released. Under similar circumstances, appellate decisions have held that an administrative appeal is moot. See Goldfeld v. Planning Zoning Commission, 3 Conn.App. 172, 177 (1985) (appellant must sustain his interest in the property involved throughout the course of his appeal); Craig v. Maher, 174 Conn. 8, 9 (1977) (referring to motor vehicle appeal, plaintiff must maintain interest throughout appeal). In addition in light of the declaration that the city cannot and will not commence further proceedings against the plaintiff for further orders or damages, there are not collateral consequences here. Cf. Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (2006).
The plaintiff notes that she has alleged a civil rights violation as well as possible defamation claims in this appeal. The limited nature of an administrative appeal does not afford the plaintiff an opportunity to raise these claims in an appeal under § 4-183. See Beizer v. Department of Labor, 56 Conn.App. 347, 362 (1999).
Therefore the motion to dismiss by both defendants is granted on the ground of mootness.