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

HARTFORD/WINDSOR HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES, LLC v. CITY OF HARTFORD TRINITY HILL REALTY, LLC v. CITY OF HARTFORD (SC 18498)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella and McLachlan, Js.* Argued April 26--officially released August 31, 2010

Jonathan M. Starble, with whom, on the brief, was Marybeth C. McPadden, for the appellants (plaintiff in each case). Ralph W. Johnson III, with whom was Michael C. Collins, for the appellee (defendant in both cases).

Opinion

VERTEFEUILLE, J. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly affirmed the decision of the board of assessment appeals (board) for the defendant, the city of Hartford (city), which had affirmed the classification by the city's tax assessor of two parcels of real estate on which nursing homes were located as commercial properties for purposes of real estate taxation on the ground that the nursing homes did not contain ``dwelling units used for human habitation'' to otherwise be deemed apartment property or residential for the purposes of General Statutes

Download Hartford/Windsor Healthcare Properties, LLC v. Hartford.pdf

Connecticut Law