Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Jannat, LLC

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion
motions and petitions for certification is the “officially
released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is
to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an
opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and
subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut
Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the
State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced
or distributed without the express written permission of
the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial
Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Jannat, LLC

ALDIN ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
v. JANNAT, LLC, ET AL.
(AC 48753)
Cradle, C. J., and Alvord and Eveleigh, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his action
that sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from constructing a
gasoline station on real property owned by the named defendant. The plain-
tiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly determined that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint on the ground that he had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Held:

This court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were unavailing, as they
were without merit.

Argued April 9—officially released May 12, 2026

Procedural History

Action seeking temporary and permanent injunctions
preventing the named defendant from constructing a
gasoline station on certain real property, and other relief,
brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of
New London, where the court, Chadwick, J., granted the
defendants’ motions to dismiss and rendered judgment
thereon; thereafter, the court, Chadwick, J., denied the
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and the plaintiff
appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Kyle J. Zrenda, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Linda L. Morkan, with whom were Ryan D. Hoy-
ler and, on the brief, Brian R. Smith, for the appellees
(defendants).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. In this action for injunctive relief to
prevent the construction of a gasoline station, the plain-
tiff, Aldin Associates Limited Partnership, appeals from
the judgment of dismissal, and the denial of its motion
for reconsideration, rendered by the trial court in favor
of the defendants, Jannat, LLC (Jannat), Walter Craven,
Paul Rich, and Martin McKinney. The plaintiff claims
Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Jannat, LLC

on appeal that the court improperly determined that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s
complaint on the ground that it had failed to exhaust
its administrative remedies.1 We affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
The following procedural history is relevant to our
disposition of this appeal. The plaintiff commenced the
present action in April 2024, seeking injunctive relief
to prevent the construction of a gasoline station. Jan-
nat filed a motion to dismiss, in which it alleged that
the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the plaintiff
had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, and a
memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss.2
Jannat noted that the plaintiff “is actively pursuing these
administrative remedies in not one, but three separate
appeals of administrative actions taken by the Planning
and Zoning Commission of the Town of Stonington and
the Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Stonington.”
(Emphasis omitted.) The plaintiff filed a memorandum
of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and Jan-
nat filed a reply.
In its March 25, 2025 memorandum of decision dis-
missing the plaintiff’s complaint, the court noted that
the plaintiff owns “a parcel of improved real property,
which includes a gasoline station,” which is situated
“a short distance” from property located at 54 South
Broad Street in Stonington and owned by Jannat, which
develops gasoline stations and convenience stores. Jannat
received approval for a wetlands permit to redevelop its
property with a convenience store and gasoline pumps, a
canopy, and associated parking. The plaintiff appealed
1
The plaintiff also responds to the defendants’ proposed alternative
grounds for affirmance, which we need not reach.
2
The defendants Craven, Rich, and McKinney are tradesmen who are
alleged to have applied for or are noted on permits for various work at
the Jannat property. Craven, Rich, and McKinney also filed a motion
to dismiss, in which they adopted the arguments contained within
Jannat’s motion to dismiss and its memorandum of law in support of
its motion to dismiss.
Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Jannat, LLC

the approval of the application. Following an amend-
ment to the prior wetlands permit, the plaintiff, as an
intervenor, again appealed. The plaintiff also appealed
an approval of a certificate of location approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
The court in the present action took judicial notice
that the plaintiff has “pending cases on the same issues
in multiple separate appeals.”3 The court next considered
Jannat’s assertion that the plaintiff had not exhausted
its administrative remedies because of the multiple
pending appeals, and the plaintiff’s response that an
exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies
doctrine applied on the basis that its complaint sought
equitable relief. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argu-
ment, explaining that “the plaintiff has not alleged that it
suffered any specific damages yet. Instead, the complaint
alleges that the construction of the new gasoline station
will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.” Because the
plaintiff had not pleaded special damages in support of
its request for equitable relief, the court stated that “the
issue of an alleged nuisance [was] thus not yet ripe for
adjudication.” Accordingly, the court concluded that
the exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of admin-
istrative remedies had not been satisfied and the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.
The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which
was denied. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improp-
erly (1) addressed the sufficiency of the pleadings as a
jurisdictional issue, and (2) determined that the plain-
tiff’s complaint did not satisfy the exception to the
exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. Having
3
See Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Inland Wetlands Com-
mission, Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No.
CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S; Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Planning &
Zoning Commission, Superior Court, judicial district of New London,
Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S; Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v.
Inland Wetlands Commission, Superior Court, judicial district of New
London, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S.
Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Jannat, LLC

reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we
conclude that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.