FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

James Greene, Patrick Crehan and Richard Fricke,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 89-132

 

State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General,

 

                        Respondent                  January 24, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing on September 15, 1989, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented exhibits, testimony, and argument on the complaint.

 

            The parties agreed that the caption of the case should be corrected to show that James Greene, Patrick Crehan, and Richard Fricke are the complainants herein.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:

 

            1.         The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.         By letter of complaint dated April 5, 1989, the complainants alleged that the respondent failed to provide them with the copy of an appraisal which served as the basis for the condemnation of approximately fifty-three acres owned by them in Danbury and Ridgefield.

 

            3.         The respondent claims that it is not required to provide the appraisal report because the report is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(7), G.S.

 

            4.         The complainants maintain that since acquisition of the land is complete 1-19(b)(7), G.S., does not exempt the appraisal from disclosure.

 

            5.         It is found that, although acquisition of the complainants' land by the state is complete, the owners of the land have appealed the assessment of damages to Superior Court pursuant to 13a-76, G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 89-132                                      page two

 

            6.         It is found that 432 of the Connecticut Practice Book governs the timing for the exchange of appraisals for the parties to an eminent domain proceeding.

 

            7.         It is concluded that the exception to disclosure for appraisals at 1-19(b)(7), G.S., protects the requested appraisal from disclosure because disclosure pursuant to this provision would affect the law of eminent domain.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.         The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 24, 1990.

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-132                                   page three

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

JAMES GREENE, PATRICK CREHAN AND RICHARD FRICKE

c/o Timothy S. Hollister, Esq.

Pepe & Hazard

One Corporate Center

Hartford, CT 06130

 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

c/o Michael J. Lombardo, Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission