Kaluszka v. Town of East Hartford
This text of 760 A.2d 1269 (Kaluszka v. Town of East Hartford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[750]*750 Opinion
The defendants, the town of East Hartford (town) and its mayor and chief of police,1 appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in this declaratory judgment action. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly decided that the legislature has preempted municipalities from regulating hunting within their boundaries and that § 13-33 (b) (5) of the code of ordinances of the town of East Hartford2 conflicts with General Statutes § 26-27c.3 We affirm the [751]*751judgment of the trial court for the reasons set forth in the court’s comprehensive memorandum of decision.
On September 2,1997, the plaintiff, Michael Kaluszka, commenced a declaratory judgment action against the defendants seeking to have § 13-33 of the code of ordinances of the town of East Hartford declared invalid to the extent that the ordinance regulates hunting and to enjoin the mayor and the chief of police from enforcing § 13-33 to the extent that such ordinance regulates hunting that is otherwise lawful under state statutes and regulations. The plaintiff is a resident of the town and has a valid hunting license issued by the department of environmental protection (department). The plaintiff alleges that § 13-33 operates to regulate and prohibit hunting within the town, except as specified in § 13-33 (b) (5). He further alleges that General Statutes § 26-3 et seq. authorizes the commissioner of the department to regulate hunting in the state. He also alleges that the town does not have the legal authority to regulate hunting and that the mayor and chief of police are charged ex officio with enforcing the ordinance.
Alter the pleadings were closed, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the town lacked authority to enact the disputed ordinance. The defendants objected to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and filed a cross motion for summary judgment with affidavits, claiming that § 13-33 is a firearms regulation ordinance and that the prohibition of § 13-33 does not apply to hunting areas that comply with state regulations and have been approved by the [752]*752chief of police. The court rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, declaring that the legislature has preempted municipalities from regulating hunting and that § 13-33 is invalid to the extent that it operates to regulate hunting. The defendants appealed.
On the basis of our examination of the record and briefs, we are persuaded that the judgment of the court should be affirmed. The issues regarding the underlying dispute were resolved properly in the trial court’s thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. See Kaluszka v. East Hartford, 46 Conn. Sup. 588, 760 A.2d 1282 (1999). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See East v. Labbe, 54 Conn. App. 479, 480-81, 735 A.2d 370 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 359, 746 A.2d 751 (2000); In re Karrlo K., 40 Conn. App. 73, 75, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996).
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
760 A.2d 1269, 60 Conn. App. 749, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaluszka-v-town-of-east-hartford-connappct-2000.