Seramonte Associates, LLC v. Hamden
Citations
- 345 Conn. 76
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 12-63c (a)), an owner of real property used primarily for the purpose of producing rental income may be required to ''annually submit to the assessor not later than the first day of June'' certain income and expense information for such property. Pursuant further to statute (§ 12-63c (d)), an owner who fails to submit the information required by § 12-63c (a) ''shall be subject to a penalty equal to a ten per cent increase in the assessed value of such property for such assessment year.'' The plaintiff, who owns certain real property in the town of Hamden, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant town's board of assessment appeals, which upheld the assessment, pursuant to § 12-63c (d), of a 10 percent penalty against the plaintiff's property for the plaintiff's purportedly late submission of certain 2015 income and expense information pursuant to § 12-63c (a). The plaintiff had mailed the information on May 31, 2016, but the assessor did not receive it until June 2, 2016, one day after the June 1 deadline set forth in § 12- 63c (a). The trial court upheld the board's decision, granted the town's motion for summary judgment, and rendered judgment for the town, concluding that the penalty was not improperly imposed because the word ''submit,'' as used in § 12-63c (a), required that the assessor receive the information by June 1. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that, when viewed in the context of other tax statutes, the use of the word ''submit'' in § 12-63c (a) unambiguously required delivery of the information to the assessor by June 1. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the term ''submit'' in § 12-63c (a) means ''to send'' and that the Appellate Court, therefore, incorrectly had concluded that the term ''submit'' required that the assessor receive the income and expense information by June 1. Held that the Appellate Court co
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting proposed construction of ‘‘the word ‘sub- mit’ ’’ in part because of practical considerations regard- ing incentive of taxpayers to ensure ‘‘that municipal assessors obtain necessary information in a timely fash- ion’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Clark v. Waterford, Cohanzie Fire Dept.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-06-20· cited 11×
- Cochran v. Dept. of TransportationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-12-24· cited 10×
- 9 Pettipaug, LLC v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-06-18· cited 9×
- Cohen v. RossiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-06-20· cited 3×
- Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-05-07· cited 2×
- Clue v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-08-26· cited 2×
- NEMS, PLLC v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of Connecticut, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-21· cited 1×
- In re Jewelyette M.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-03-21· cited 1×
- State v. Enrrique H.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-12-30· cited 1×
- FuelCell Energy, Inc. v. GrotonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-07-24
- PPC Realty, LLC v. HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-12
- McCullough v. Rocky HillConnecticut Appellate Court· 2026-05-19
Cites
31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Moskal v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1990-12-03· cited 742×
- Commissioner v. AckerSupreme Court· 1959-11-16· cited 316×
- United States v. YermianSupreme Court· 1984-06-27· cited 207×
- State v. CourchesneSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-03-11· cited 204×
- Turner v. TurnerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-07-18· cited 182×
- Caldor's, Inc. v. Bedding Barn, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1979-04-10· cited 86×
- Hummel v. Marten Transports, Ltd.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-05-22· cited 70×
- Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-01-01· cited 63×
- State v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-04-15· cited 61×
- Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-03-19· cited 58×
- Teresa T. v. RagagliaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-02-08· cited 58×
- United States v. T. E. Hill, Jr. And Larry Moore, T. E. Hill, Jr. And Larry Moore v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1966-12-22· cited 50×
- Rivers v. City of New BritainSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-22· cited 49×
- Bankers Trust Co. v. BlodgettSupreme Court· 1923-01-22· cited 45×
- Dennis v. ShawSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1951-01-23· cited 42×
- Department of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-11-02· cited 41×
- Mott's Super Markets, Inc. v. FrassinelliSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1961-06-20· cited 39×
- State v. TurnerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-02-18· cited 38×
- Ledyard v. WMS Gaming, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-04-21· cited 38×
- Emerson v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1833-06-15· cited 38×
Other cases named Seramonte Associates, LLC v. Hamden
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.