Vandenbroeck v. Redding Zoning Commission, No. 30 84 44 (Jul. 8, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Vandenbroeck v. Redding Zoning Commission, No. 30 84 44 (Jul. 8, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6503

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 8, 1992

DocketNo. 30 84 44

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6503 (Vandenbroeck v. Redding Zoning Commission, No. 30 84 44 (Jul. 8, 1992)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vandenbroeck v. Redding Zoning Commission, No. 30 84 44 (Jul. 8, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6503 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is an Administrative Appeal brought by the plaintiffs, Michael Vandenbroeck and Richard Woodburn, against the Redding Zoning Commission, Redding Zoning CT Page 6504 Enforcement Officer and Costa Stergue. The plaintiffs appeared before this court seeking a restraining order and a temporary injunction preventing the defendant Stergue from performing any construction work on the subject premises at 584 Redding Road, Redding, Connecticut, until the resolution of the underlying appeal.

"The issuance of an injunction lies in the sound discretion of the trial court exercised according to recognized principles of equity." Schomer v. Shilepsky,169 Conn. 186, 194 (1975). "[T]he justifiable interest which entitles one to seek redress in an action for injunctive relief is at least one funded on the imminence of substantial and irreparable injury." Karls v. Alexandra Realty Corporation, 179 Conn. 390, 401 (1980). "It is not enough to show that the defendant has violated the zoning regulations. The plaintiff seeking injunctive relief bears the burden of proving facts which will establish irreparable harm as a result of that violation." Id.

Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, this court is unable to find that the plaintiffs have established such harm. While there was testimony that the plaintiffs have recently suffered a diminution in their water supply, there was insufficient proof to show that this has been caused by any act of the defendant at the subject property. "We have long recognized that no court of equity should ever grant an injunction merely because of the fears or apprehensions of the party applying for it, for those fears may exist without any substantial reason." Moore v. Serafin, 163 Conn. 1, 11 (1972). The harm must be presently occurring or about to occur.

Accordingly, the motion for a restraining order and temporary injunction is denied.

Rodriguez, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is an Administrative Appeal brought by the plaintiffs, Michael Vandenbroeck and Richard Woodburn, against the Redding Zoning Commission, Redding Zoning CT Page 6504 Enforcement Officer and Costa Stergue. The plaintiffs appeared before this court seeking a restraining order and a temporary injunction preventing the defendant Stergue from performing any construction work on the subject premises at 584 Redding Road, Redding, Connecticut, until the resolution of the underlying appeal.

"The issuance of an injunction lies in the sound discretion of the trial court exercised according to recognized principles of equity." Schomer v. Shilepsky,169 Conn. 186, 194 (1975). "[T]he justifiable interest which entitles one to seek redress in an action for injunctive relief is at least one funded on the imminence of substantial and irreparable injury." Karls v. Alexandra Realty Corporation, 179 Conn. 390, 401 (1980). "It is not enough to show that the defendant has violated the zoning regulations. The plaintiff seeking injunctive relief bears the burden of proving facts which will establish irreparable harm as a result of that violation." Id.

Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, this court is unable to find that the plaintiffs have established such harm. While there was testimony that the plaintiffs have recently suffered a diminution in their water supply, there was insufficient proof to show that this has been caused by any act of the defendant at the subject property. "We have long recognized that no court of equity should ever grant an injunction merely because of the fears or apprehensions of the party applying for it, for those fears may exist without any substantial reason." Moore v. Serafin, 163 Conn. 1, 11 (1972). The harm must be presently occurring or about to occur.

Accordingly, the motion for a restraining order and temporary injunction is denied.

Rodriguez, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandenbroeck-v-redding-zoning-commission-no-30-84-44-jul-8-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack