*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
GEORGE BERKA v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN

(AC 41902)

GEORGE BERKA v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN

(AC 42138)

GEORGE BERKA v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN

(AC 42139)

GEORGE BERKA v. CITY OF

MIDDLETOWN ET AL.

(AC 42206)

Lavine, Elgo and Bear, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff filed four separate appeals against the defendant city of Middletown, challenging, inter alia, the issuance of blight orders against certain

of the plaintiff’s real property, and the rejection of his application for

a special exception to operate a sober house at the same property.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motions to dismiss the four

complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, from which the plaintiff filed separate appeals to this court. Held:

1. In the appeal in Docket No. AC 41902, the plaintiff could not prevail on

his claim that the city’s blight ordinance violated, inter alia, his due

process rights, as the trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s

appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the plaintiff had failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies when he prematurely filed the

appeal directly from the issuance of the blight citation, and prior to the

defendant issuing a failure to pay fines notice in violation of the procedure as set forth by statute (§ 7-152c), and, therefore, there was no

ruling by a hearing officer from which the plaintiff could have properly

appealed to the trial court.

2. In the appeal in Docket No. AC 42138, this court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction over the appeal, as the plaintiff failed to timely seek from

this court certification for review of the judgment of dismissal, pursuant

to statute (§ 8-8 (o)); the plaintiff never received the requisite affirmative

vote of two judges that would have allowed him to appeal to this court

and, accordingly, this appeal was dismissed.

3. In the appeal in Docket No. AC 42139, the trial court improperly granted

the defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of an actual controversy with respect to the plaintiff’s assertion of constitutional claims in

an individual capacity challenging the defendant’s blight ordinance; the

defendant submitted uncontroverted evidence that it had issued blight

citations and fines to the plaintiff pursuant to the challenged ordinance

with respect to the plaintiff’s property, and the trial court, having failed

to construe the self-represented plaintiff’s complaint in the broad and

realistic manner as required by our case law, did not conduct an examination of the plaintiff’s individual constitutional claims as required and,

although this court offered no view as to the merits of the plaintiff’s

individual constitutional claims, the trial court could afford practical

relief to the plaintiff if he ultimately proves that some or all of the

provisions of the applicable statute (§ 7-152c) establishing a citation

hearing procedure or the city’s blight ordinance violated his constitutional rights.

4. In the appeal in Docket No. AC 42206, the trial court did not err in granting

the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, as the defendant’s withdrawal of the blight citation issued to the plaintiff on May

27, 2016, rendered moot the claims in the action he filed on May 8, 2018;

no action had been taken against the plaintiff pursuant to the May 27,

2016 citation, and there was no practical relief that the court could grant

the plaintiff.

Argued October 23, 2019—officially released February 11, 2020

Procedural History

Action, in the first case, challenging, inter alia, the
defendant’s issuance of a blight citation on certain of

the plaintiff’s real property, and action, in the second

case, challenging a certain zoning decision made by

the defendant’s planning and zoning commission, and

action, in a third case, seeking to invalidate a certain

ordinance of the defendant, and action, in a fourth case,

challenging the issuance of a blight citation by the

named defendant on certain of the plaintiff’s real property, brought to the Superior Court in the district of

Middletown, where the trial court, Aurigemma, J.,

granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss in the first

case and rendered judgment thereon, from which the

plaintiff appealed; thereafter, the trial court, Domnarsks, J., granted the defendant’s motions to dismiss

in the second and third cases and rendered judgment

thereon, from which the plaintiff filed separate appeals;

subsequently, the court, Domnarski, J., granted the

named defendant’s motion to dismiss in the fourth case

and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed. Judgments in Docket Nos. AC 41902 and

AC 42206 affirmed; appeal in Docket No. AC 42138

dismissed; judgment in Docket No. AC 42139 affirmed

in part; reversed in part; further proceedings.

George Berka, self-represented, the appellant in each

case (plaintiff).

Brig Smith, for the appellee (defendant in first, second and third cases and named defendant in fourth

case).
Opinion

BEAR, J. These four appeals pertain to certain real

property in Middletown owned by the self-represented

plaintiff, George Berka, and rented by him to multiple

individuals. Although neither the cases nor the appeals

have been officially consolidated, we write one opinion

for the purpose of judicial economy and assess the

claims made in each appeal.

The plaintiff appeals from four judgments of the Superior Court granting the motions of the defendant the

city of Middletown1

to dismiss the complaints in four

cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In two of

his appeals to this court—Docket Nos. AC 41902 and AC

42206—the plaintiff’s claims relate either to a citation

issued to him in 2016 for conditions on his property

alleged to have violated the Middletown blight ordinance, which citation subsequently was unilaterally

withdrawn by the defendant, or to a subsequent citation

issued to him in 2018 concerning essentially the same

alleged violations. In his appeal in Docket No. AC 42138,

the plaintiff challenges the denial of his application for

a special exception to operate a sober house. The appeal

in Docket No. AC 42139 concerns the propriety of the

court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition to have the

blight ordinance invalidated on constitutional and other

grounds. We affirm the judgments of the court with

respect to the plaintiff’s claims asserted in Docket Nos.

AC 41902 and AC 42206. We dismiss Docket No. AC

42138 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm

the court’s judgment in Docket No. AC 42139 with

respect to its dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition insofar

as it (1) asks the court to amend the Middletown blight

ordinance, and (2) is predicated on nonconstitutional

grounds but we reverse the judgment of the trial court

with respect to its dismissal of the plaintiff’s constitutional claims asserted in an individual capacity.

The following undisputed facts and procedural history provide context for the plaintiff’s four appeals. The

plaintiff owns real property located at 5 Maple Place

in Middletown (property) and rents rooms in the house

on the property to individuals. The first appeal, Docket

No. AC 41902, relates to the plaintiff’s premature appeal

to the trial court from the 2018 blight notice and subsequent citation. On January 10, 2018, the plaintiff was

issued a notice of blight pursuant to chapter 120, article

11, § 120-25A of the City of Middletown Code of Ordinances (ordinance),2 which was enacted in accordance

with General Statutes § 7-152c (a). On February 14,

2018, after the plaintiff failed to remedy the alleged

blighted conditions specified in the notice, the defendant issued a blight citation to the plaintiff. The citation

provided the plaintiff fifteen days to pay the fines that

had been assessed for the violations listed in the notice

of blight. The plaintiff, however, brought an action in

the trial court on March 22, 2018, prior to the issuance
of a failure to pay fines notice in accordance with § 7-

152c and the ordinance, and prior to any administrative

hearing or assessment of fines as provided for by § 7-

152c and the ordinance. The defendant filed a motion

to dismiss the complaint in that action on May 24, 2018,

which was granted by the court on July 20, 2018. The

court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim because the plaintiff had

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and,

accordingly, his claim was not ripe for judicial review.3

The second appeal to this court, Docket No. AC

42138, relates to the plaintiff’s request to the Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission (commission)

for a special exception to operate a sober house on

his property. The commission denied the application

without prejudice on the basis that the property was

not in compliance with a number of Middletown local

health and safety ordinances, for which the plaintiff

previously had been cited in 2016. The denial of the

application was published in the Hartford Courant on

February 22, 2018.4 Forty days later, on April 3, 2018,

the plaintiff appealed the denial to the trial court. The

defendant filed a motion to dismiss that appeal on June

29, 2018, which was granted by the court on September

18, 2018, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiff’s third appeal to this court, Docket No.

AC 42139, is from the dismissal of his petition to have

the court invalidate or, in the alternative, amend the

blight ordinance. On May 8, 2018, the plaintiff filed a

‘‘petition to overturn blight ordinance.’’ On June 28,

2018, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition, which the court granted on nonjusticiability grounds on September 18, 2018.

The fourth matter on appeal, Docket No. AC 42206,

involves the defendant’s unilateral withdrawal of the

2016 citation to the defendant. The plaintiff was issued

a citation on May 27, 2016, for essentially the same

underlying blight and city health code violations contained in the subsequent January 10, 2018, blight notice

to him. The plaintiff was in the process of appealing

that citation when the defendant unilaterally withdrew

it on July 22, 2016.5 The plaintiff thereafter withdrew

his 2016 appeal. Almost two years later, on May 8, 2018,

the plaintiff served a complaint alleging that the defendant had attempted to deprive him of his constitutional

rights by issuing the 2016 blight citation. At oral argument in the trial court, and in his brief on appeal, he

claims that the defendant’s withdrawal of the citation

was evidence of its consciousness of guilt. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on July

2, 2018. On October 17, 2018, the court granted the

defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of

mootness.

We first set forth the applicable standard of review
when considering a trial court’s granting of a motion

to dismiss. ‘‘A motion to dismiss . . . properly attacks

the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that

the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a

cause of action that should be heard by the court. . . .

A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the

face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.

. . . [O]ur review of the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion and resulting grant of the motion to dismiss

will be de novo. . . . Factual findings underlying the

court’s decision, however, will not be disturbed unless

they are clearly erroneous. . . . The applicable standard of review for the denial of a motion to dismiss,

therefore, generally turns on whether the appellant

seeks to challenge the legal conclusions of the trial

court or its factual determinations. . . .

‘‘When a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question

raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss, it must consider

the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable

light. . . . In this regard, a court must take the facts

to be those alleged in the complaint, including those

facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.

. . . The motion to dismiss . . . admits all facts which

are well pleaded, invokes the existing record and must

be decided upon that alone. . . . [I]n determining

whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every

presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.’’

(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Glastonbury, 132

Conn. App. 218, 221–22, 31 A.3d 429 (2011).

We address each appeal separately. Additional facts

will be set forth as necessary.

I

AC 41902

In Docket No. AC 41902, the plaintiff appeals from

the court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to dismiss

the plaintiff’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that

the Middletown blight ordinance, as applied to him,

violates his due process and other rights. Specifically,

he claims, inter alia, that the ordinance is difficult for

an ordinary person to understand, that the appeal process is overly complicated, and that the fines imposed

for violations are oppressively high. The following facts

are relevant to this appeal.

The defendant issued to the plaintiff a notice of blight

on January 10, 2018, and, on February 14, 2018, the

defendant issued to the plaintiff a blight citation. The

defendant issued a failure to pay fines notice to the

plaintiff on March 28, 2018. Under § 120-25A of the

ordinance, the plaintiff may seek a hearing in front of

a citation hearing officer within ten days of the issuance

of a failure to pay fines notice. There is no provision
either in § 7-152c or the ordinance permitting an administrative appeal from the notice of blight or the blight

citation. The plaintiff, moreover, filed an appeal from

the issuance of the citation directly to the Superior

Court on March 22, 2018—six days before the failure

to pay fines notice was issued, and before he had filed

any administrative appeal. At the time of filing his

appeal to the court, the plaintiff did not have the right,

pursuant either to § 7-152c or the ordinance, to seek

administrative review by a Middletown administrative

hearing officer. The plaintiff’s first opportunity for an

administrative hearing arose, pursuant to § 7-152c and

the ordinance, only after the failure to pay fines notice

was issued by the defendant on March 28, 2018.

‘‘It is a settled principle of administrative law that, if

an adequate administrative remedy exists, it must be

exhausted before the Superior Court will obtain jurisdiction to act in the matter. . . . The exhaustion doctrine reflects the legislative intent that such issues be

handled in the first instance by local administrative

officials in order to provide aggrieved persons with

full and adequate administrative relief, and to give the

reviewing court the benefit of the local board’s judgment. . . . It also relieves courts of the burden of prematurely deciding questions that, entrusted to an

agency, may receive a satisfactory administrative disposition and avoid the need for judicial review.’’ (Citations

omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simko v.

Ervin, 234 Conn. 498, 503–504, 661 A.2d 1018 (1995).

In the present case, the plaintiff was required to

receive a failure to pay fines notice in order for his

right to an administrative review by a hearing officer

to arise. The plaintiff, however, filed his appeal to the

Superior Court prior to receiving a failure to pay fines

notice. Therefore, at the time the plaintiff appealed to

the court, he did not have the right to an administrative

remedy by an appeal to a hearing officer. No administrative hearing had occurred, and there was no ruling by

a hearing officer from which the plaintiff could appeal

to the court. Accordingly, the court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the

court dismissing the plaintiff’s administrative appeal in

Docket No. AC 41902.

II

AC 42138

In Docket No. AC 42138, the plaintiff appeals from

the court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to dismiss

the plaintiff’s zoning appeal on the basis that his appeal

to the court was untimely. Specifically, the plaintiff

claims that, although the denial of his application to

operate a sober house was published in the Hartford

Courant on February 22, 2018, the actual date of denial

should be recognized as being March 22, 2018, because
that is the date the plaintiff actually became aware of

the denial. The plaintiff did not seek permission from

this court to file the present appeal and, accordingly,

we lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear this claim.

General Statutes § 8-8 (o) governs Superior Court and

Appellate Court review of zoning commission decisions. On September 24, 2018, the date of the plaintiff’s

zoning appeal to this court, § 8-8 (o) provided: ‘‘There

shall be no right to further review [of judgments rendered by the Superior Court] except to the Appellate

Court by certification for review, on the vote of two

judges of the Appellate Court so to certify and under

such other rules as the judges of the Appellate Court

establish. . . .’’ (Emphasis added.)

It is undisputed that, in the present appeal, the plaintiff did not timely seek from this court certification

for review of the judgment of dismissal. He, therefore,

never received the requisite affirmative vote of two

judges that would have allowed him, in September or

October, 2018, to appeal to this court. Accordingly,

because no such certification was granted in this case,

this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the

appeal.6 Therefore, we dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal in

Docket No. AC 42138.

III

AC 42139

In Docket No. AC 42139, the plaintiff appeals from

the court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to dismiss

his ‘‘petition to overturn blight ordinance’’ on nonjusticiability grounds. We reverse the decision of the court

only with respect to the constitutional challenges

alleged by the plaintiff in that petition in his individual capacity.

Before considering the merits of the plaintiff’s claim,

we first review the state of the record before us and

the facts contained therein. It is undisputed that, on

February 14, 2018, the defendant issued a blight citation

to the plaintiff regarding the property.7

It also is undisputed that, on March 22, 2018, the plaintiff commenced

an appeal of that blight citation in the Superior Court

for the judicial district of Middlesex.

On May 8, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an action seeking to invalidate the blight ordinance. The plaintiff commenced a third civil action that same day, which is the

subject of Docket No. AC 42206; see part IV of this

opinion; and which alleged due process violations stemming from a blight citation issued to the plaintiff by

the defendant in 2016. The record thus unequivocally

indicates, and the defendant on appeal concedes, that

two related actions regarding the propriety of blight

citations issued to the plaintiff regarding his property

were pending in the same courthouse at the time that

his ‘‘petition to overturn blight ordinance’’ was commenced.
His petition admittedly was not in the form of a complaint in accordance with the rules of practice. See

Practice Book § 10-1.8 The plaintiff’s self-styled petition

sets forth general allegations regarding the defendant’s

blight ordinance without any reference to particular

properties or property owners. More specifically, the

petitioner alleged that ‘‘(1) in its current form, [the

blight ordinance] does not allow accused parties to

contest the charges before being fined, (2) it does not

grant accused parties the right to a speedy trial, (3) the

fines are excessive relative to the minor nature of the

infractions, (4) it does not adequately safeguard the

rights of property owners, (5) it has the potential to

unjustly inflict financial ruin, (6) it may be prejudicial

against property owners in certain cases, and (7) it

potentially violates many important constitutional safeguards, such as the rights to privacy, freedom of selfexpression, security in one’s possessions, and the prohibition against the taking of one’s property without due

process of law.’’

In response, the defendant moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that

(1) no actual controversy existed between the parties,

(2) the plaintiff was purporting to bring the action on

behalf of all residents of the defendant municipality,

and (3) the controversy was nonjusticiable, in that it

properly was the prerogative of the defendant’s legislative body to provide redress of the alleged infirmities

in the blight ordinance. Significantly, the defendant

appended five exhibits to its memorandum of law in

support of that motion, including copies of the blight

citation, the failure to pay fines notice, and the assessment of fines notice that the defendant issued to the

plaintiff in 2018, regarding the property. Those materials

thus were properly before the court when the issue

of justiciability was raised, as the substance of those

materials was not contested by the plaintiff.9

The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to dismiss, in which he argued that ‘‘he absolutely does have

standing’’ because ‘‘[t]he determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to [him by prohibiting

the defendant] from imposing this unjust ordinance on

him and his fellow property owners in the future.’’ The

plaintiff further averred that an actual controversy

existed ‘‘between or among the parties to the dispute

[because] the people of the [defendant municipality],

inclusive of the plaintiff, are in a real danger of losing

their homes without due process of law or just compensation, in direct violation of their [fifth and fourteenth]

amendment rights.’’

By order dated September 18, 2018, the trial court,

Domnarski, J., granted the motion to dismiss. In that

order, the court concluded that (1) ‘‘[t]here is no actual

controversy between the parties,’’ and (2) the plaintiff’s

claims are not justiciable because ‘‘the court cannot
give practical relief to the plaintiff. Any repeal or amendment of the blight ordinance must be done by municipal

action, not by the court.’’ On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the propriety of both determinations.

A

We first consider the actual controversy question. In

so doing, we are mindful that, in deciding a motion to

dismiss, the ‘‘court must take the facts to be those

alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in

a manner most favorable to the pleader.’’ (Emphasis

added.) Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 308, 709

A.2d 1089 (1998). ‘‘[I]n determining whether a court has

subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring

jurisdiction should be indulged.’’ (Internal quotation

marks omitted.) Connecticut Energy Marketers Assn.

v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection, 324

Conn. 362, 385, 152 A.3d 509 (2016). Furthermore, it is

‘‘the established policy of the Connecticut courts to

be solicitous of [self-represented] litigants and when it

does not interfere with the rights of other parties to

construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the

[self-represented] party. . . . The courts adhere to this

rule to ensure that [self-represented] litigants receive

a full and fair opportunity to be heard, regardless of

their lack of legal education and experience . . . . This

rule of construction has limits, however.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514, 549, 911 A.2d 712 (2006). ‘‘The

modern trend . . . is to construe pleadings broadly

and realistically, rather than narrowly and technically.’’

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 563, 569, 877 A.2d

761 (2005). ‘‘[W]hile courts should not construe pleadings narrowly and technically, courts also cannot contort pleadings in such a way so as to strain the bounds

of rational comprehension.’’ Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 181 Conn. App. 778, 793, 189 A.3d

135, cert. denied, 329 Conn. 911, 186 A.3d 707 (2018).

In the present case, the plaintiff brought an action

challenging the validity of the defendant’s blight ordinance, claiming, inter alia, that it violates certain constitutional guarantees. In moving to dismiss that action,

the defendant submitted uncontroverted evidence indicating that it had issued blight citations and fines to

the plaintiff pursuant to the ordinance with respect to

his property. The defendant likewise concedes, in its

appellate brief before this court, that the plaintiff’s

action to invalidate the blight ordinance arises ‘‘out of

the same underlying enforcement actions against his

rental property at 5 Maple Place.’’ In light of that concession, it is not surprising that the plaintiff, in objecting

to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, represented to

the court that this action was brought because ‘‘the

people of the [defendant municipality], inclusive of the
[p]laintiff, are in a real danger of losing their homes

without due process of law or just compensation.’’

(Emphasis added.)

In the proceedings in the trial court, the plaintiff, the

defendant, and the trial judge all were aware of the

multiple actions pending in that court regarding the

application of the blight ordinance to the plaintiff’s

property.10 The interrelatedness of those actions, which

the defendant on appeal expressly concedes, is borne

out by the pleadings in those related proceedings. Like

the trial court, this court properly may take judicial

notice of the filings in those related proceedings, which

unequivocally indicate that the plaintiff was contesting

the enforcement of the blight ordinance on his property.11 See Wasson v. Wasson, 91 Conn. App. 149, 151

n.1, 881 A.2d 356 (‘‘[t]he Appellate Court, like the trial

court, may take judicial notice of files of the Superior

Court in the same or other cases’’ [internal quotation

marks omitted]), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 932, 890 A.2d

574 (2005); see also Karp v. Urban Redevelopment Commission, 162 Conn. 525, 527, 294 A.2d 633 (1972)

(‘‘[t]here is no question [of] our power to take judicial

notice of files of the Superior Court, whether the file

is from the case at bar or otherwise’’); Folsom v. Zoning

Board of Appeals, 160 Conn. App. 1, 3 n.3, 124 A.3d 928

(2015) (taking ‘‘judicial notice of the plaintiff’s Superior

Court filings in . . . related actions filed by the

plaintiff’’).

Cognizant of our obligation to indulge every presumption favoring subject matter jurisdiction, as well as to

provide reasonable latitude to self-represented parties;

see Maresca v. Allen, 181 Conn. 521, 521 n.1, 436 A.2d

14 (1980); we disagree with the court’s conclusion that

the plaintiff’s petition does not pertain to an actual

controversy between the parties. The court improperly

granted the motion to dismiss for lack of an actual controversy.

B

We next consider the question of practical relief. In

dismissing the plaintiff’s action to invalidate the blight

ordinance, the court concluded that it ‘‘cannot give

practical relief to the plaintiff [because] any repeal or

amendment . . . must be done by municipal action,

not by the court.’’ To the extent that the plaintiff has

asserted constitutional claims in an individual capacity,

we disagree with the court.

‘‘[W]hen a question of constitutionality is raised,

courts must approach it with caution, examine it with

care, and sustain the legislation unless its invalidity is

clear.’’ State v. Long, 268 Conn. 508, 521, 847 A.2d 862,

cert. denied, 543 U.S. 969, 125 S. Ct. 424, 160 L. Ed.

2d 340 (2004). To the extent that the self-represented

plaintiff in the present case attempts to assert constitutional violations on behalf of the citizens of Middletown
generally, the plaintiff does not have standing to do

so. ‘‘The authorization to appear [as a self-represented

litigant] is limited to representing one’s own cause, and

does not permit individuals to appear [as a self-represented litigant] in a representative capacity.’’ Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut, 34 Conn. App. 543, 546, 642 A.2d 62, cert.

denied, 230 Conn. 915, 645 A.2d 1018 (1994). Insofar as

the plaintiff in his petition has asserted claims on behalf

of the Middletown citizenry generally, the court properly granted the motion to dismiss such claims.

The plaintiff nonetheless was free to assert claims in

an individual capacity. Although not in the form

required under our rules of practice, the plaintiff provided ample notice that his petition was predicated, in

part, on constitutional grounds. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged, in relevant part, that the blight ordinance

‘‘violates many important constitutional safeguards,

such as the rights to privacy, freedom of self-expression,

security in one’s possessions, and the prohibition

against the taking of one’s property without due process

of law.’’ The petitioner also expressly invoked the first

amendment in that pleading.

‘‘Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery

in motion. One cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction

of the court unless he [or she] has, in an individual or

representative capacity, some real interest in the cause

of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or interest

in the subject matter of the controversy.’’ Gladstein v.

Goldfield, 325 Conn. 418, 421 n.3, 159 A.3d 661 (2017).

Construing the plaintiff’s petition in accordance with

the broad and realistic framework through which Connecticut courts are instructed to consider the pleadings

of self-represented litigants, we conclude that it contains allegations of a constitutional dimension. It does

not ‘‘strain the bounds of rational comprehension’’;

Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 181

Conn. App. 793; to acknowledge that at least some of

the plaintiff’s constitutional allegations are intended to

directly apply to him.

As a result, we disagree with the court’s conclusion

that it could not afford any practical relief to the plaintiff. It is well established that both this court and the

trial court have the jurisdiction to overturn state and

municipal legislation and ordinances that violate federal

and state constitutional protections.12 Because the

defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition, the structure of the petition as a complaint was

not challenged by the defendant. With our reversal of

the court’s judgment of dismissal insofar as it relates to

the plaintiff’s allegations of violations of his individual

constitutional rights, those allegations in the petition,

on remand, are before the court. The court could afford

practical relief to him if the plaintiff ultimately proves

that some or all of the provisions of § 7-152c or the
blight ordinance violated his constitutional rights.

In summary, on the basis of our thorough review of

the record and relevant case law, we conclude that the

court failed to construe the self-represented plaintiff’s

petition in the broad and realistic manner required by

our case law and, as a result, it did not conduct the

examination of the plaintiff’s individual constitutional

claims that our case law further requires. Accordingly,

we reverse the judgment of the court granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition in

Docket No. AC 42139 with respect to the plaintiff’s

individual constitutional claims. In so doing, we offer

no view whatsoever as to the merits of those claims.13

IV

AC 42206

In Docket No. AC 42206, the plaintiff appeals from

the judgment of the court granting the defendant’s

motion to dismiss his complaint filed on May 8, 2018,

which challenged a blight citation issued by the defendant on May 27, 2016, on the ground of mootness. The

defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint

on July 2, 2018, on the basis that the defendant had

withdrawn that blight citation on July 22, 2016, and that

no action had been taken against the plaintiff pursuant

to that citation, rendering the plaintiff’s appeal moot

because there was no practical relief that the court

could grant. On October 17, 2018, the court granted the

defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the

withdrawal of the citation mooted the plaintiff’s claims,

and, therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. We agree with the court.

‘‘Mootness is a question of justiciability that must be

determined as a threshold matter because it implicates

this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. . . . An actual

controversy must exist not only at the time the appeal

is taken, but also throughout the pendency of the

appeal. . . . When, during the pendency of an appeal,

events have occurred that preclude an appellate court

from granting any practical relief through its disposition

of the merits, a case has become moot.’’ (Citations

omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Renaissance Management Co. v. Barnes, 175 Conn. App. 681,

685–86, 168 A.3d 530 (2017).

Because the defendant’s withdrawal of the blight citation issued to the plaintiff on May 27, 2016, rendered

moot the claims in the complaint he filed on May 8,

2018, with respect to the citation, we conclude that the

court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to

dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.

The judgments in Docket Nos. AC 41902 and AC 42206

are affirmed; the appeal in Docket No. AC 42138 is

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in

Docket No. AC 42139 is reversed in part and the case

is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 Linda S.K. Reed was also named as a defendant in the action that is

the subject of the appeal in Docket No. AC 42206. She is not a party to that

appeal and all references herein to the defendant are to the city of Middletown.

2 The City of Middletown Code of Ordinances, Chapter 120, Article II, § 120-

25A provides the city’s procedure for issuing and appealing blight citations.

3 The defendant issued to the plaintiff a failure to pay fines notice on

March 28, 2018, six days after the plaintiff initiated the action challenging

such fines. Section 7-152c provides that, following the issuance of a failure

to pay fines notice, the party to whom the notice has been issued has ten

days to appeal to an administrative hearing officer. The plaintiff timely

sought an administrative appeal. A hearing officer was assigned, and a

hearing was held on May 2, 2018. After the hearing, the hearing officer

issued a decision sustaining the city’s blight citation and denying the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed this decision two days later on May 4,

2018, initiating an action currently pending in the trial court. On May 7,

2018, the hearing officer issued an amended hearing decision, again denying

the plaintiff’s claims.

4 The publication states in relevant part: ‘‘Notice of decision by the Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of February

14, 2018: 1. Denied without prejudice a proposed [s]pecial [e]xception to

Section 60.02.24 under the Americans with Disabilities Act to operate a

recovery home (sober house) at 5 Maple Place, Applicant/agent George

Berka SE 2017-7.’’

Additionally, during oral argument on the appeals, the defendant’s counsel

was questioned about whether the defendant also had sent to the plaintiff

by certified mail individual notice of its decision. See General Statutes § 8-

26e. The attorney for the defendant was unable to answer that question at

oral argument, but he subsequently sent to this court, with a copy to the

plaintiff, who did not object to the submission, a copy of the certified mail

notice to the defendant at his home address in Waterbury. If it is necessary

to do so, we take judicial notice of the certified mail to the plaintiff. See

Gamez-Reyes v. Biagi, 136 Conn. App. 258, 261 n.4, 44 A.3d 197, cert. denied,

306 Conn. 905, 52 A.3d 731 (2012).

5

In its brief and at oral argument in Docket No. AC 42206, the defendant

explained that, at the same time it had issued the blight citation to the

plaintiff, the state’s attorney’s office had brought a case against the plaintiff

for the same violations set forth in its blight citation. The defendant stated

that it withdrew the 2016 blight citation because of the duplicative nature

of the claims against the plaintiff set forth in the blight citation and the

claims against him being pursued by the state’s attorney.

6 We also note that, even if this appeal properly were before this court,

the plaintiff filed his appeal in the trial court on April 3, 2018—forty days

after the decision of the commission was published. General Statutes § 8-

8 (b) states in relevant part: ‘‘[A]ny person aggrieved by any decision of a

board, including . . . a special permit or special exception pursuant to

section 8-3c, may take an appeal to the superior court for the judicial district

in which the municipality is located. . . . The appeal shall be commenced

by service of process . . . within fifteen days from the date that notice of

the decision was published as required by the general statutes.’’ The plaintiff’s appeal was not filed within fifteen days of the date of publication and,

therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

See, e.g., Bridgeport Bowl-O-Rama, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 195

Conn. 276, 283, 487 A.2d 559 (1985) (holding that court properly dismissed

plaintiff’s appeal when plaintiff failed to bring its appeal of zoning board

of appeals decision within fifteen days after publication of adequate notice

of decision as required by § 8-8). The plaintiff did not challenge the adequacy

of the published notice. See, e.g., id., 281–82.

7 Copies of that blight citation, as well as the failure to pay fines notice

and the assessment of fines notice issued by the defendant, all accompanied

the defendant’s motion to dismiss and, thus, properly were before the court

when the issue of justiciability was raised.

8 Practice Book § 10-1 provides in relevant part: ‘‘Each pleading shall

contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the

pleader relies, but not of the evidence by which they are to be proved,

such statement to be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, each

containing as nearly as may be a separate allegation. . . .’’
9 We recognize that, as our precedent instructs, a court cannot decide a

motion to dismiss on the basis of ‘‘factual and legal memoranda of the

parties’’ when issues of fact are disputed. Bradley’s Appeal from Probate,

19 Conn. App. 456, 466, 563 A.2d 1358 (1989). Here, the materials furnished

to the court by the defendant are not disputed and demonstrate that the

plaintiff has been subject to actions to enforce the blight ordinance against

his property.

10 The record indicates that Judge Domnarski ruled on the present action

concerning the validity of the blight ordinance and the plaintiff’s appeal

from the denial of his application for a special exception to operate a sober

house on the property on September 18, 2018; on October 17, 2018, he

dismissed the plaintiff’s action regarding the 2016 blight citation.

11 We view the defendant’s representation in its appellate brief that the

present action arises ‘‘out of the same underlying enforcement actions

against [the] property at 5 Maple Place’’ as the plaintiff’s other civil actions

filed against the defendant in 2018, as an invitation to take judicial notice

of those related proceedings, if not a judicial admission. See, e.g., Rodia v.

Tesco Corp., 11 Conn. App. 391, 395, 527 A.2d 721 (1987) (‘‘[w]e view this

statement by the plaintiffs in their [appellate] brief as analogous to a judicial

admission and therefore binding on the plaintiffs’’).

12 This court may exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts

in cases arising under the federal constitution. See, e.g., Stratford v. Bridgeport, 173 Conn. 303, 311, 377 A.2d 327 (1977) (‘‘[a]lthough it is true that

where the supremacy of federal law exists it requires that state courts apply

that law, the mere fact of such supremacy does not oust a state court

from jurisdiction’’).

13 We likewise reiterate the procedural posture of this case, which is a

dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. The question of whether the plaintiff’s

operative pleading can survive a motion to strike, therefore, is not presently

before us.

We further note that Practice Book § 10-60 (a) (1) provides in relevant

part that ‘‘[e]xcept as provided in Section 10-66, a party may amend his or

her pleadings or other parts of the record or proceedings at any time subsequent to that stated in the preceding section . . . [b]y order of judicial

authority. . . .’’ Whether to permit the plaintiff to amend his pleading pursuant to that rule of practice ‘‘rests within the discretion of the trial court.’’

Martinez v. New Haven, 328 Conn. 1, 15 n.13, 176 A.3d 531 (2018).