Any person or business concern aggrieved by any agency action, concerning their eligibility for relocation payments authorized by this chapter may appeal such determination to the Commissioner of Transportation in the case of relocation made necessary by a transportation project or to the Commissioner of Housing in the case of relocation made necessary by any other state agency program or project. The Commissioner of Transportation and the Commissioner of Housing shall have the power to certify official documents and to issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda or other records deemed necessary as evidence in connection with an appeal pursuant to this section. If any person to whom such subpoena is issued fails to appear, or having appeared refuses to give testimony or fails to produce the evidence required, the Superior Court, upon application of the Attorney General representing the appropriate commissioner, shall have jurisdiction to order such person to appear or to give testimony or produce the evidence required, as the case may be. The Commissioner of Transportation, or a hearing officer duly appointed by said commissioner, or the Commissioner of Housing, or a hearing officer duly appointed by said commissioner, shall have the power to administer oaths and affirmations in connection with an appeal pursuant to this section.
(1971, P.A. 838, S. 13; P.A. 77-614, S. 284, 610; P.A. 78-303, S. 81, 136; 78-363, S. 1–3; P.A. 79-598, S. 3, 4, 10; P.A. 95-250, S. 1; P.A. 96-211, S. 1, 5, 6; P.A. 99-200; P.A. 13-234, S. 2.)
History: P.A. 77-614 substituted department of economic development for commissioner of community affairs, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 78-303 substituted commissioner for department; P.A. 78-363 added provisions concerning powers of commissioners and superior court in appeal procedure; P.A. 79-598 substituted commissioner of housing for commissioner of economic development; P.A. 95-250 and P.A. 96-211 replaced Commissioner and Department of Housing with Commissioner and Department of Economic and Community Development; P.A. 99-200 added “their” to “Any person or business concern aggrieved by any agency action, concerning their eligibility for relocation payments ...” and made technical changes; pursuant to P.A. 13-234, references to Commissioner of Economic and Community Development were changed editorially by the Revisors to references to Commissioner of Housing, effective June 19, 2013.
Cited. 192 C. 207; 204 C. 551.
Cited. 19 CA 360; 32 CA 636. Issue of reimbursement expenses for business relocation is outside scope of compensation for the taking of real property and not an essential term of settlement agreement pursuant to Sec. 13a-76. 189 CA 828.
Cited. 34 CS 199; 43 CS 457.
Notes of Decisions
Comm'r of Transp. v. Rocky Mountain, LLC, 894 A.2d 259 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 8× “If a business seeks to contest the amount of compensation *710 offered by the state, the state relocation act requires an appeal to the acquiring agency; General Statutes § 8-278; followed by an administrative appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to the UAPA.”
Silverman v. City of New Haven, 562 A.2d 562 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 8× “The plain *363 tiffs did not appeal the denial by DRES of the requested relief to the state commissioner of housing (commissioner), as provided by General Statutes § 8-278 1 and § 8-273-1 of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies.”
Savoy Laundry, Inc. v. Town of Stratford, 630 A.2d 159 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 5× “The plaintiff contends that it would have been futile to pursue the administrative remedy provided for in General Statutes § 8-278 2 since the commissioner of housing was limited to reviewing the SRA’s decision on eligibility for relocation payments only and since the housing…”
Dukes v. Durante, 471 A.2d 1368 (Conn. 1984).
· cites it 3× “C Section 8-278 of the act provides that “[a]ny person .”
Concerned Citizens of Sterling v. Town of Sterling, 529 A.2d 666 (Conn. 1987).
· cites it 2× “” The plaintiffs in that case sought injunctive relief because the defendants had failed to provide decent, safe and adequate housing. We concluded that because the commission was authorized to determine eligibility for relocation payments only, any claim made to that agency for…”
Comm'r of Transp. v. Lagosz, 209 A.3d 709 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 2× “"Under the state relocation act, businesses are eligible to receive compensation for relocation expenses and losses when they are forced to remove personal property as a result of the state's acquisition of real property.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.