Case Name: Al Barnett et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of New Haven
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1985-06-11
Citations: 196 Conn. 439
Docket Number: 12558
Parties: Al Barnett et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of New Haven
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 196
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
Al Barnett et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of New Haven
(12558)
Healey, Shea, Dannehy, Santaniello and Callahan, Js.
Argued April 12
decision released June 11, 1985
William F. Gallagher, with whom, on the brief, was Robert P. Borquez, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Roger B. Calistro, assistant corporation counsel, with whom, on the brief, were Charles Albom, Abigail Feliciano-Gomez and Gordon Hall, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiffs have appealed from a decision of the defendant board of zoning appeals of the city of New Haven that denied their application for a "special exception" and a variance. Noting that "[t]he plaintiffs have failed to seek relief by way of ad damnum or any other claim of relief in their complaint on appeal," the trial court dismissed the action for failure of the plaintiffs "to invoke the jurisdiction of the court . . . J' Our decision in Fishery. Board of Zon ing Appeals, 142 Conn. 275, 113 A.2d 587 (1955), is dis-positive and, therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing this zoning appeal for failing to append to the complaint a prayer for relief.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It was conceded at oral argument before us that the trial court dismissed this matter on its own motion.