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

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. 

*********************************************** 
TOWN OF MONROE ET AL. v. SCOTT OSTROSKY

(AC 40976)

DiPentima, C. J., and Bright and Beach, Js.

Syllabus

The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court

denying his motion to open and vacate the court’s prior judgment that

had been rendered in favor of the plaintiff town and several of its

agencies and employees. The defendant owned property that was located

in the plaintiff town and an adjacent town. The plaintiffs commenced

the present action after the defendant failed to comply with two cease

and desist orders, which alleged violations of zoning and inland wetlands

regulations. The present action was consolidated with a nearly identical

action brought by the adjacent town and several of its agencies and

employees, and the cases shared the same pertinent history in the trial

court and in this court. Held that the defendant could not prevail on

his claim that he did not have notice of, and an opportunity to be heard

at, an evidentiary hearing, this court having addressed and fully resolved

a similar claim raised by the adjacent town in the companion case of

Newtown v. Ostrosky (191 Conn. App. 450), which was also decided by

this court today.

Argued January 7—officially released July 30, 2019

Procedural History

Action for, inter alia, a temporary and permanent

injunction requiring the defendant to comply with certain cease and desist orders, and for other relief,

brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of

Fairfield, where the case was tried to the court, Hon.

Richard P. Gilardi, judge trial referee; judgment for

the plaintiffs; thereafter, the court granted the motion

for contempt filed by the plaintiffs and awarded damages to the plaintiffs; subsequently, the court awarded

damages, attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiffs;

thereafter, the court, Radcliffe, J., denied the motion

to open and vacate the judgment filed by the defendant,

and the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Robert M. Fleischer, for the appellant (defendant).

Jeremy F. Hayden, with whom, on the brief, was

John P. Fracassini, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The defendant, Scott Ostrosky,

appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying

his motion to open and to vacate the court’s judgment

in favor of the plaintiffs, the town of Monroe and several

of its agencies and employees.1 The defendant claims

that he did not have notice of and an opportunity to

be heard at an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant owns property that is located in the

towns of Monroe and Newtown. The town of Monroe

served two cease and desist orders on the defendant

on May 14, 2013, which orders alleged violations of

zoning and inland wetlands regulations. The defendant

failed to comply, and the plaintiffs served a summons

and complaint dated February 20, 2014. In April, 2014,

this case was consolidated with the nearly identical

case of Newtown v. Ostrosky, Superior Court, judicial

district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-14-6041984-S.

The cases brought by the towns of Newtown and

Monroe, and the towns’ various agencies and employees, thereafter shared the same pertinent history in the

trial court and in this court. The cases were argued

before this court on the same day. Parts II and III of

our opinion in Newtown v. Ostrosky, 191 Conn. App.

450, A.3d (2019), together with the factual discussion therein, fully resolve the issues presented in

this case, and no useful purpose would be served by

repetition here.

The judgment is affirmed.

1 The plaintiffs are the town of Monroe, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Monroe, the Inland Wetlands Commission of the Town

of Monroe, and Joseph Chapman, the town of Monroe land use enforcement officer.