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

FAIRCHILD HEIGHTS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. FAIRCHILD HEIGHTS, INC. (AC 31661)
Harper, Lavine and Mihalakos, Js. Argued November 17, 2010--officially released September 27, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Complex Litigation Docket, Cremins, J.) Douglas J. Varga, for the appellant (plaintiff). Colin P. Mahon, with whom was Thomas T. Lonardo, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion

LAVINE, J. The plaintiff, Fairchild Heights Residents Association, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court.1 The defendant, Fairchild Heights, Inc., claims that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to bringing this action.2 We agree that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and that the trial court otherwise lacked jurisdiction and should have dismissed the case. The following procedural history sets forth the facts necessary to resolve the question of subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff3 commenced this action by serving the defendant with a three count complaint in July, 2006. The complaint contained two counts of negligence per se alleging that the defendant had violated (1) General Statutes

Download Fairchild Heights Residents Assn., Inc. v. Fairchild Heights, Inc..pdf

Connecticut Law