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

EDWARD A. PERUTA v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBILC SAFETY, ET AL. (AC 31142)
DiPentima, C. J., and Harper and Pellegrino, Js. Argued January 4--officially released May 24, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Cohn. J.) Rachel M. Baird, for the appellant (plaintiff). Matthew B. Beizer, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, for the appellants (defendants).

Opinion

DiPENTIMA, C. J. The plaintiff, Edward A. Peruta, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the defendants' motion to dismiss his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that (1) he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and (2) the administrative remedies available to him were not inadequate and futile. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The record reveals the following facts and procedural history relevant to our discussion.1 The plaintiff travels throughout the state and possesses a permit to carry pistols or revolvers (permit) issued by the department of public safety (department) pursuant to General Statutes

Download Peruta v. Commissioner of Public Safety.pdf

Connecticut Law