Giglio v. Ardohain

Citations

• 233 Conn. App. 743

Syllabus

The plaintiff, who owned real property adjacent to that owned by the defen- dant A and on which the defendant M resided, appealed from the trial court's judgment, rendered in favor of the defendants, A, M, and M's business entity, E Co. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly determined that the defendants' conduct had not created a private nuisance by unreason- ably interfering with her use and enjoyment of her property. Held: The trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish her claim of private nuisance was not clearly erroneous, as the court considered all relevant factors in determining that intermittent noise from vehicles at M's residence and smoke from a woodstove there, which occasionally drifted toward the plaintiff's home, did not constitute an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her property. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief as part of her claim for private enforcement of city zoning regulations against the defendants, the court having found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a sufficient causal connection between her claims of harm and the defendants' conduct. Argued November 14, 2024—officially released July 15, 2025