City of New Haven v. Town of East Haven

818 A.2d 741, 263 Conn. 108, 2003 Conn. LEXIS 113
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided April 8, 2003·No. SC 16738·Published

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, the town of East Haven, appeals1 from the judgment of the trial court declaring certain properties owned by the plaintiff, the city of New Haven, located within the defendant’s borders and used in connection with Tweed-New Haven Airport (airport), to be tax exempt pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-742and 12-81.3The defendant levied taxes [110] on the plaintiffs property located within the defendant’s borders after determining that the property had lost its tax exempt status under § 12-74 upon being leased by the plaintiff to the Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority (airport authority).* **4

The defendant claims that the lease between the plaintiff and the airport authority triggered all three the exceptions to tax exemption enumerated in § 12-74. Specifically, the defendant argues that: (1) the lease between the plaintiff and the airport authority evidenced the plaintiffs intent to utilize the airport as source of profit; (2) by virtue of the lease, the defendant does not have the same privileges as the plaintiff with respect to the use of the airport; and (3) the airport authority constitutes a “person, association or private corporation” within the meaning of § 12-74. The defendant also claims that the trial court improperly declined to render a judgment declaring the respective rights, duties and obligations of the parties pursuant to the Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority Act, General Statutes § et seq. 5

[111] “Our examination of the record and briefs and our [112] consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade [113] us that the judgment of the trial court should be [114] affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the trial [115] court’s . . . well reasoned memorandum of decision. [116] [New Haven v. East Haven, 47 Conn. Sup. 594, 822 A.2d [117]*117376 (2001)]. Because that memorandum of decision [118] fully addresses all arguments raised in this appeal, we [119] adopt it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein.” (Citation omitted.) Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 259 Conn. 45, 55-56, 787 A.2d 530 (2002).

The judgment is affirmed.

Footnotes

* * *

[110] “(4) Municipal property. Except as otherwise provided by law, property belonging to, or held in trust for, a municipal corporation of this state and used for a public purpose . . . .”

General Statutes § 15-120h provides: “As used in sections 15-120g to 15-120o, inclusive, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

“(1) ‘Authority’ means the Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority as created under section 15-120Í;

“(2) ‘Procedure’ means each statement, by the authority, of general applicability, without regard to its designation, that implements or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization or procedure of the authority. The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior regulation, but does not include, unless otherwise provided by any provision of the general statutes, (A) statements concerning only the internal management of the [111] authority and not affecting procedures available to the public and (B) intraauthority memoranda;

“(3) ‘Proposed procedure’ means a proposal by the authority under the provisions of section 15-120k for anewprocedure or for a change in, addition to or repeal of an existing procedure.”

General Statutes § 15-120Í provides: “(a) There is created a body politic and corporate to be known as the ‘Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority’. Said authority shall be a public instrumentality and political subdivision of this state and the exercise by the authority of the powers conferred by sections 15-120g to 15-120o, inclusive, shall be deemed and held to be the performance of an essential public and governmental function. The Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority shall not be construed to be a department, institution or agency of the state.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of New Haven v. Town of East Haven, 818 A.2d 741, 263 Conn. 108, 2003 Conn. LEXIS 113 (Colo. 2003).

818 A.2d 741 (City of New Haven v. Town of East Haven) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daniels v. Commissioner of Revenue Services
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2026