Timex Realty, Inc. v. City of New Haven (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION IN RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT # 106 AND # 110

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff claims there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in the complaint.   The plaintiff claims the items assessed by the defendant, City of New Haven, as personal property to wit:  underground fuel tanks, gas pumps, lighting, signage and air filling stations are fixtures of real estate and may not be assessed and taxed as personal property.

The defendant objects to the Motion for Summary Judgment and argues that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the plaintiff's property is in fact personal property and taxable as such for the Grand List Years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

II DISCUSSION

Practice Book § 17-49 “provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ․ In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party ․ The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to judgment as a matter of law ․ and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.”   (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Barrett v. Montesano, 269 Conn. 787, 791-92, 849 A.2d 839 (2004).  “In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist.”  Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495, 500, 538 A.2d 1031 (1988).

“In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Provencher v. Enfield, 284 Conn. 772, 790-91, 936 A.2d 625 (2007).  “[S]ummary judgment is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way ․ [A] Summary disposition ․ should be on evidence which a jury would not be at liberty to disbelieve and which would require a directed verdict for the moving party ․ [A] directed verdict may be rendered only where, on the evidence viewed in light most favorable to the nonmovant, the trier of fact could not reasonably reach any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as directed.”  (Citations omitted;  emphasis in original;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Dugan v. Mobile Medical Testing Services, Inc., 265 Conn. 791, 815, 830 A.2d 752 (2003).

The plaintiff does not cite any case law findings that gas pumps, air filling stations, signage or lighting are not personal property subject to taxation.   Whether these items are fixtures are issues of material fact to be determined by the finder of fact.

For the above stated reasons, both plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment are denied.

By the Court

Brian T. Fischer, J.

Fischer, Brian T., J.