Berglass v. Dworkin

── Berglass v. Dworkin ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: June 02, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ 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. ************************************************  Berglass v. Dworkin STEVEN BERGLASS, TRUSTEE v. HEIDI DWORKIN ET AL. (AC 48263) Cradle, C. J., and Seeley and Eveleigh, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his action, which sought, inter alia, an injunction preventing the defendants from constructing a fence on certain real property. The plaintiff claimed that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint. Held: The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s action, as the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was rendered moot by the completed construction of the fence, and the plaintiff failed to allege facts to satisfy the exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. Argued April 16—officially released June 2, 2026 Procedural History Action seeking, inter alia, an injunction preventing the defendants from constructing a fence on certain real property, and other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, where the court, Noble, J., granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Brendon P. Levesque, with whom were Michael S. Taylor and, on the brief, Corinne A. Burlingham and Eric P. Anderson, for the appellant (plaintiff). Michael T. Cretella, for the appellees (defendants). Opinion PER CURIAM. In this action for injunctive relief to prevent the construction of a fence, the plaintiff, Ste- ven Berglass, trustee of the Steven Berglass Revocable Living Trust, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint against the defendants, Heidi Dworkin and Jay Dworkin. On appeal, the plain- tiff claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint on  Berglass v. Dworkin the grounds that the completed construction of the fence rendered the matter moot and the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 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 July 2022, seeking injunctive relief to prevent the defendants’ construction of a fence on their property, which was adjacent to the plaintiff’s property, on Kings Highway in Milford.1 The plaintiff alle