Jump to Navigation

Land Use and Real Estate Litigation

In furthering the interests of our land use and real estate clients, Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff, LLC litigators bring and defend land use appeals, commercial lease disputes, and property tax appeals. We also utilize our trial experience in foreclosure, eminent domain, partition, title and boundary disputes, and landlord-tenant matters.

  • Represented real estate purchaser in action against broker who took and failed to return deposit to purchase real estate for investment purposes, obtaining judgment for treble damages, attorney's fees and interest. See McCarthy v. Cimini, 2007 WL 4571173 (Conn. Super Ct. Nov. 28, 2007).
  • Represented defendant Milford Zoning Board of Appeals in successful defense of decisions of board accepting zoning enforcement officer's action in certifying a lot as legally nonconforming. See Cavallo v. City of Milford Zoning Board of Appeals, 2006 WL 3759293 (Conn. Super Ct. Dec. 11, 2006).
  • Represented plaintiff landowner seeking to recover for expenses incurred to remediate hazardous waste allegedly illegally and negligently dumped on real property. See 49 Commercial Parkway, LLC v. Salomonsen, 2006 WL 696501 (Conn. Super Ct. Mar. 3, 2006).
  • Represented plaintiff home purchaser in successful action against vendor to obtain recession, resolution and prejudgment interests based on fraud and negligent misrepresentations in connection with statement about boundary. See Wallenta v. Moscowitz, 81 Conn. App. 213, 839 A.2d 641 (2004).
  • Represented major real estate developer in action in which seller of commercial shopping centers alleged developer had made misrepresentations and had tortiously interfered with contract between seller and its employee. See Beckenstein Enterprises-Prestige Park, LLC v. Lichenstein, 37 Conn. L. Rptr. 627, 2004 WL 1966863 (Conn. Super Ct. Aug. 11, 2004).
  • Counseled national developer of manufacturers' outlet malls in connection with unfair trade practice action against opponent of mall who had formerly owned property sold to developer of competing mall and who solicited and financed adjacent property owners to bring litigation to block development of the mall. See Lewis v. Chelse G.C.A. Realty Partnership, L.P., 2003 WL 356680 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan 22, 2003)(granting summary judgment for defendant, rev'd, 86 Conn. App. 596 862 A.3d 368 (2004)(reversing because trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanding with direction to render judgment dismissing the actions.)
  • Represented co-defendant in action by general contractor hired to demolish a building in which contractor sought to recover from defendants damages it suffered from alleged dumping of construction and demolition debris from other sites. See Sultt Construction Co., Inc. v. Bottling Group, LLC, et al., 2003 WL 22598196 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 28, 2003).
  • Represented major personal communications service provider in successful action under the Telecommunications Act (TCA) challenging town's denial of request to erect a monopole tower to extend the reach of its service. See SBA Communications, Inc. v. Zoning Commission of the Town of Franklin, 164 F. Supp. 2d 280 (D. Conn. 2001).
  • Represented telecommunications company in action under the Telecommunications Act (TCA) to compel issuance of a special permit to construct a wireless personal communications tower. See Spring Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of North Stonington, 12 F. Supp. 2d 247 (D. Conn. 1998).
  • Trial counsel for real estate developer in multi-million dollar claim for monopolization of local shopping center market by use of sham zoning appeals to block development of a regional shopping center. See Landmarks Holding Corp. v. Bermant, 664 F.2d 891 (2d Cir. 1981)(appeal by prior counsel).

Our Practice

Contact Us

147 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 112
Milford, Connecticut 06460
203-877-8000
203-878-9800-FAX
Map & Directions

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close