Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MARY BRENNAN v. TOWN OF FAIRFIELD (SC 16342)
Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Sullivan and Vertefeuille, Js.* Argued December 1, 2000--officially released April 17, 2001 Counsel

Brenden P. Leydon, with whom, on the brief, was Francis J. Ficarra, for the appellant (plaintiff). Charles W. (defendant). Fleischmann,
Opinion

for

the

appellee

BORDEN, J. The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether notice is timely when it is received by a town official on the ninety-second day, under a ninety day notice statute, when the municipal office that is authorized to receive the notice is closed on the ninetieth and ninety-first days. Following our grant of certification,1 the plaintiff, Mary Brennan, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the town of Fairfield. The plaintiff claims that: (1) notice that is received on the ninetysecond day under a ninety day notice statute is suffi-

cient when the municipal office that is authorized to receive the notice is closed on the ninetieth and ninetyfirst days, a Saturday and Sunday; and (2) notice given to a town clerk pursuant to General Statutes

Download Brennan v. Fairfield.pdf

Connecticut Law