Ardito v. N. Branford W. Poll. Cont., No. Cv 94 036 8201 S (Dec. 14, 1999)
Opinion
The appellants have introduced no evidence that the assessment levied against their property is excessive save for the statement that the town did not re-assess the subject property after the benefit assessment in an amount to reflect an increment of $12,300.00. Actually, the increment was minuscule, only $70.00
In the Shoreline Care case, supra, the Supreme Court held that a property owner need not be connected to the newly installed system to receive a benefit. The court went on to say that to overcome the presumption of the validity of assessment of benefits, the appellants must introduce evidence that the assessment is greater than the increase in market value caused by the improvement. Id. At 344.
Anthony V. DeMayo Judge of the Superior Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16144 (Ardito v. N. Branford W. Poll. Cont., No. Cv 94 036 8201 S (Dec. 14, 1999)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.