Preview:

Supreme Court
No.2002-370-Appeal.
(WC 02-323)
Don Krivitsky d/b/a Coastline Copters                                                                  :
v.                                                                                                     :
Town of Westerly.                                                                                      :
Present:  Williams, C.J., Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ.
O P I N I O N
PER CURIAM.   The Town of Westerly (town) appeals from a Superior Court justice’s
order directing the town clerk to issue Don Krivitsky d/b/a Coastline Copters (Coastline) a class
III amusement license to operate a helicopter for hire by selling rides to the public.   This case
was ordered expedited, pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear and show cause why
the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.   Having reviewed the record
and the parties’ briefs, and having considered the oral arguments, we are of the opinion that
cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the appeal at this time.    For the reasons
indicated below, we conclude that the Superior Court was without jurisdiction to hear the matter
and, consequently, we vacate its order.  The pertinent facts are as follows.
Coastline applied for a class III amusement license to operate a helicopter on property in
Westerly to provide rides for a fee.   The Licensing Board for the Town of Westerly (board) held
a hearing on the application on May  9,  2002.    The board heard testimony that Coastline’s
proposal met federal aviation regulations and that it also received the required state approval.  At
the hearing, the police chief expressed his concerns about excessive noise and flying dust and
1




debris thrown around during takeoff and landing.   After addressing those concerns, the board
voted to grant the license for conducting the rides between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. subject to the
approval of other proper authorities.  The license was dated May 9, 2002, with an expiration date
of May 15, 2003.
The Code of Ordinances for the Town of Westerly (code) states that all persons operating
or conducting any amusements:
“shall have a license issued by the town clerk, upon approval of the
town council, and subject to the written approval of the chief of
police, building official and zoning inspector; provided, however,
in case the chief of police refuses or fails to approve the issuance
of such license, the applicant may appeal to the town council * *
*.”   Westerly Code of Ordinances, pt. III, ch. 7, art. V, § 7-81
(1991).
After the board approved the license, the police chief signed it.   However, the police chief
changed his mind and obliterated his signature before delivering the license to the town manager.
He gave the town manager a memorandum dated May 13, 2002, citing safety concerns as his
reason for disapproval.  Thus, the license never was issued.  Coastline appealed the police chief’s
disapproval to the town council, pursuant to § 7-81 of the code.   On appeal, the town council
sustained the police chief’s action and refused to issue the license.
Coastline petitioned the Superior Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the town to
issue the license.  The trial justice granted the writ, finding that the police chief did not have “the
authority to act arbitrarily and revoke a duly executed license.”      The trial justice indicated that
the board fully addressed the police chief’s safety concerns.   As a result, the trial justice ordered
the town to issue the license because “the application [met] all applicable Federal, State and
Town Ordinances, was approved by the  [board], and signed by the Chief of Police” and
“[p]laintiff has [the legal] right to the issuance of the license.”
2




Our first task is to address the potentially dispositive issue of mootness.   Coastline avers
that whether the Superior Court justice properly issued the writ of mandamus is moot because (1)
the license’s proposed expiration date was May 15, 2003, (2) Coastline no longer has access to a
helicopter, and (3) federal and state approval for the operation lapsed on September 7, 2002.
Conversely, the town contends that the issue is not moot because if the writ were issued properly,
Coastline need only renew the license, instead of reapplying.1  In the alternative, the town asserts
that even if the issue is moot, it is of great public importance, probably will arise again and is
capable of evading review.
An issue is moot “if the original complaint raised a justiciable controversy, but events
occurring after the filing have deprived the litigant of a continuing stake in the controversy.”
Cicilline  v.  Almond,                                                                                 809  A.2d   1101,   1105  (R.I.   2002)   (quoting  Associated  Builders  &
Contractors of Rhode Island, Inc. v. City of Providence, 754 A.2d 89, 90 (R.I. 2000)).   This
Court will not adjudicate a case that is moot “unless the issues raised are ‘of extreme public
importance, which are capable of repetition but which evade review.’”    Id. at 1105-06 (quoting
Sullivan v. Chafee, 703 A.2d 748, 752 (R.I. 1997)).     Because the license, if issued, would not
have expired at the time of oral argument and because, at oral argument, counsel represented that
the town council was scheduled to hear Coastline’s new application for this year’s license, we
conclude that the issues in this matter are not moot.
1 Although the town contends that Coastline need only renew its application, the code does not
specifically address the renewal requirement for amusement licenses.   The code does, however,
delegate to the town clerk the power to issue renewals for thirty different types of licenses upon
approval of the proper authorities.   See Westerly Code of Ordinances, pt. III, ch. 7, art. X, §§ 7-
217,  7-218  (1991).    Amusement licenses are not among those listed.    See id. at  §  7-217.
Therefore, it is clear that when an amusement license expires, the operator must reapply.
3




Next, the town argues that the Superior Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to hear the
case because a writ of certiorari to this Court was the only proper avenue for review.   Coastline
responds that because the license was properly issued at the moment the police chief initially
signed it, there was no denial but rather an unlawful revocation and, therefore, Coastline believes
that it could seek a writ of mandamus in Superior Court.    We agree with the town.
The code provides that if the police chief or town manager denies a license, the applicant
may appeal to the town council.   See § 7-81.   Thereafter, the proper procedure for review of a
town council decision to grant or deny a license is by a writ of certiorari to this Court, unless “a
right of appeal is specifically provided by statute.” Tillinghast v. Town of Glocester, 766 A.2d
946,  946  (R.I.  2001)  (mem.).      Although the town did not raise this jurisdictional issue in
Superior  Court,  we  may  address  issues  of  subject-matter  jurisdiction  sua  sponte.    See
Woonsocket Teachers’ Guild, Local 951, AFT v. Woonsocket School Committee, 770 A.2d 834,
837 (R.I. 2001).
We conclude that when the police chief obliterated his earlier signature of approval it
constituted a denial, not a revocation, of the license.   The code gives him the authority to
unilaterally deny amusement licenses subject to an appeal to the town council.   We will not
second-guess the police chief’s decision-making process because he changed his mind while still
in possession of the pending license.   Therefore, the police chief properly denied the license
under the code, subjecting his decision to an appeal to the town council.
Coastline filed an appeal with the town council on May 22, 2002, requesting that it order
the clerk to issue the license.  On June 3, 2002, Coastline appeared in front of the town council to
address its appeal.  Coastline presented its case through counsel.  Several town officials testified,
including the police chief, who reiterated the safety concerns that he expressed at the first
4




hearing.  Five residents also opposed the approval of the license.  Subsequently, the town council
decided to deny the appeal and sustain the police chief’s decision by a vote of six to zero.
We conclude that this hearing satisfied § 7-81 of the code.   First, as explained above, the
police chief denied the license; he did not revoke it.  Second, Coastline’s hearing before the town
council  addressed  all  the  concerns  discussed  at  the  first  hearing  and  allowed  additional
comments from other officials and residents, not only providing appellate review of the denial
before the town council, but also essentially affording a de novo review.  As a result, Coastline’s
only appropriate avenue for review was to petition this Court for a writ of certiorari.   Therefore,
the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus.
Accordingly, we sustain the town’s appeal and vacate the order of Superior Court.   The
papers in the case may be returned to the Superior Court.
Justice Flaherty did not participate.
5




Supreme Court
No.2002-370-Appeal.
(WC 02-323)
Don Krivitsky d/b/a Coastline Copters                                        :
v.                                                                           :
Town of Westerly.                                                            :
NOTICE:   This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in
the Rhode Island Reporter.   Readers are requested to notify the Opinion
Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode  Island,  02903  at  Tel.  222-3258 of any typographical or other
formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is
published.
6




COVER SHEET
TITLE OF CASE:   Don Krivitsky d/b/a Coastline Copters v. Town of Westerly
DOCKET NO:                                                                   2002-370-Appeal.
COURT:                                                                       Supreme
DATE OPINION FILED:   June 3, 2002
Appeal from
SOURCE OF APPEAL:    Superior                                                                                     County:  Washington
JUDGE FROM OTHER COURT:                                                      Gibney, J.
JUSTICES:  Williams, C.J., Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ.
Flaherty, J.                                                                 Not Participating
Concurring
Dissenting
WRITTEN BY:      PER CURIAM
ATTORNEYS:                                                                   Michael P. Lynch
For Plaintiff
ATTORNEYS:                                                                   Lauren E. Jones/Steven T. Hartford
For Defendant
7

Download 02-370.pdf

Rhode Island Law