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

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.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

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 electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and 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.

******************************************************
KETTLE BROOK REALTY, LLC v. TOWN OF

EAST WINDSOR

(AC 36817)

Lavine, Beach and Prescott, Js.

Argued April 8—officially released July 21, 2015

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New

Britain, Hon. Arnold W. Aronson, judge trial referee.)

Jonathan M. Starble, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Laura A. Cardillo, with whom, on the brief, was

Tiffany K. Spinella, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

LAVINE, J. The plaintiff, Kettle Brook Realty, LLC,

appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing

its real estate tax appeal.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims

that the trial court improperly concluded that, pursuant

to General Statutes § 12-117a,2it was required to serve

the defendant, the Town of East Windsor (town), within

two months of the date notice of a decision by its

Board of Assessment Appeals (board) was mailed. More

particularly, the plaintiff claims that (1) it met the filing

and service requirements of § 12-177a and (2) the court

failed to distinguish properly the procedural differences

between § 12-117a and common-law civil actions. We

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

There is no dispute with regard to the following

underlying facts. The plaintiff is the owner of real property located at 96 Prospect Hill Road in the town. With

regard to the town’s Grand List as of October 1, 2012,

the town’s tax assessor valued the plaintiff’s property

at $4,089,130. The plaintiff appealed the assessment of

the property to the board and appeared before the board

to request a reduction in the assessment. On April 29,

2013, the board denied the plaintiff’s request for a

change of the assessment. The assessor mailed the

board’s decision to the plaintiff on May 1, 2013.

On June 28, 2013, the plaintiff filed an application in

the Superior Court. The application was titled ‘‘Complaint’’ and bore a return date of July 23, 2013. On July

10, 2013, a marshal served the application, citation, and

recognizance on the town and on July 17, 2013, filed

the return of service in court. On August 14, 2013, the

town filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground

that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

because the plaintiff had failed to serve the appeal

within two months of the date notice of the board’s

decision was mailed. The plaintiff opposed the motion

to dismiss contending that there is § 12-117a does not

require a tax appeal to be served within two months

of the board’s decision and that §12-117a ‘‘clearly

requires a tax appeal be commenced by filing an application with the court within two months after the

town’s action.’’ (Emphasis in original.) The parties

appeared before the court to argue the town’s motion

to dismiss. The court issued a memorandum of decision

on April 14, 2014, in which it granted the motion.

In adjudicating the motion to dismiss, the court stated

that the present case is a companion case to Chestnut

Point Realty, LLC v. East Windsor, in which the same

issue was considered and decided by the court. The

court found that the pertinent facts in the Chestnut

Point Realty case are the same as the facts in the present case. The trial court stated that the key issue in

both cases ‘‘is whether § 12-117a requires the filing of

an application of appeal to the court within two months
following the date of the notice from the [board] or

whether § 12-117a requires service of process upon the

town in order to effect a proper appeal.’’ The court

concluded that service of process is necessary to commence an appeal pursuant to § 12-117a.

In its memorandum of decision, the trial court

referred to its analysis in its memorandum of decision in

adjudicating the motion to dismiss filed in the Chestnut

Point Realty, LLC, case. The court noted that the plaintiff had isolated one term in the statute and taken it

out of context, as did the plaintiff in Chestnut Point

Realty, LLC. The court stated that a statute must be

read as a whole, rather than in separate parts. See

Wiseman v. Armstrong, 269 Conn. 802, 810, 850 A.2d

114 (2004). The court granted the town’s motion to

dismiss because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

due to the plaintiff’s failure to serve the town within

two months notice of the board’s decision.

The claims raised in the present appeal are identical

to those raised in the companion case of Chestnut Point

Realty, LLC v. East Windsor, 158 Conn. App. 565,

A.3d (2015), which we also decide today. Our decision in that case controls the present appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 This case was heard with Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. East Windsor,

158 Conn. App. 577, A.3d (2015). Although they are substantively

related, the two cases were considered separately and have been

reported separately.

2 General Statutes § 12-117a provides in relevant part: ‘‘Any person . . .

claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the . . . board of assessment

appeals . . . may, within two months from the date of the mailing of notice

of such action, make application, in the nature of an appeal therefrom . . .

to the superior court . . . which shall be accompanied by a citation to such

town . . . to appear before said court. Such citation shall be signed by the

same authority and such appeal shall be returnable at the same time and

served and returned in the same manner as is required in case of a summons

in a civil action. . . .’’