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. ******************************************************

JOHN P. COSGROVE v. CITY OF WATERBURY ET AL. (SC 17999)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella and Schaller, Js. Argued January 2--officially released May 13, 2008

Francis J. Grady, with whom were Nancy MonacoMarini and, on the brief, Bridget McCormack Ciarlo, for the appellant (plaintiff). Paula N. Anthony, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion

NORCOTT, J. The plaintiff, John P. Cosgrove, a former police officer of the defendant city of Waterbury (city), appeals1 from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the defendant retirement board of the city (board), which awarded him a disability pension in the amount of 75 percent of his annual compensation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly dismissed his appeal from the decision of the board because: (1) both a ``common sense interpretation'' of the controlling collective bargaining agreement and the Appellate Court decision in Downey v. Retirement Board, 66 Conn. App. 105, 783 A.2d 1218 (2001), required that the board award him some amount greater than 75 percent of his compensation, since he would have been entitled to a vested years of service pension (service pension) in the same amount; (2) the board violated the Municipal Employee Relations Act, General Statutes

Download Cosgrove v. Waterbury.pdf

Connecticut Law