Attorneys

Attorney Carey joined Suisman Shapiro in July of 2000, after spending almost twelve years at Brown, Jacobson in Norwich, the last seven as a partner.  While at Brown, Jacobson, Attorney Carey worked in a number of practice areas, focusing on representing claimants in workers’ compensation cases and defending employment appeals at the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court, but also dealing with municipal and land use issues. Since joining Suisman Shapiro, Attorney Carey’s practice has focused on the areas of municipal law, and especially land use law and litigation.  Attorney Carey has extensive experience in the interpretation and application of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act. 

Over the years Attorney Carey has represented many municipalities, and was for three years the in house, assistant corporation counsel of the Town of West Hartford, where he advised the Town's elected and appointed officers and officials, boards, commissions and agencies, and handled all of the Town's land use litigation. Attorney Carey currently serves as counsel to land use officials and agencies of the Town of Groton and of the City of Groton. He also serves as special land use counsel to the Town of Lyme’s Planning and Zoning Commission and Inland Wetlands Agency and as land use counsel to the Town of North Stonington and Town of Voluntown Planning and Zoning Commissions.  For three years in the 1980’s, he was an instructor for the University of Connecticut Institute of Public Policy’s CAZEO certification program for municipal zoning enforcement officers.  He was for several years the legal counsel to Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Norwich.  He served on the most recent Charter Revision Commission of the Town of Colchester and has been a member of the town’s Economic Development Commission and of a joint Economic Development/Planning and Zoning Commission subcommittee that studied critical land use issues facing the town.  In May, 2004, he was the presenter at an NBI seminar on legal issues involving local governments for which he authored an article entitled “Land Use and Planning Issues” that focused on the history and application of Connecticut’s Environmental Protection Act.  Mr. Carey has successfully argued before the Connecticut Compensation Review Board and the Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Courts.  Notable appellate cases he has successfully argued and/or briefed include:

• Vitale v. Montville ZBA (Connecticut Supreme Court 8/29/06) (Decision helped clarify question about the adequacy of service of process of municipal zoning appeal.)
  
  
• Groton Police Department v. Freedom of Information Commission (Connecticut Appellate Court 10/9/07) (Resolved the question whether the statute exempting records of child abuse from public disclosure is applicable to records compiled by a municipal police department.)
  
  
• Genesky v. Town of East Lyme (Connecticut Supreme Court 8/30/05) (Resolved the question whether constables are entitled to heart and hypertension benefits.)
  
  
•  Fort Trumbull Conversancy, LLC v. Alves (Connecticut Supreme Court 3/4/03) (Held that the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act did not apply to a municipal Building official’s decision to issue demolition permits.  The decision contains an important summary and analysis of previous case law interpreting the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act to that time.)
  
  
• Giarrantano v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Norwich (Connecticut Appellate Court 10/17/00) (Reversed the trial court decision that had declared a variance granted by the Norwich Zoning Board of Appeals to be invalid.)
  
  
• Poprosky v. Shea (Connecticut Appellate Court 5/1/90) (In a case arising out of the controversy over the permitting process for the Wheelabrator plant, the Appellate Court upheld an ordinance that simultaneously disbanded and replaced the Lisbon Planning and Zoning Commission.)
  
  
• Fleischmann v. Wethersfield, PZC, (Former Appellate Session of the Superior Court 12/24/82) (Rejected the claim that publication of commission’s notice of decision was constitutionally insufficient because applicant had requested that he be given personal notice.)
  
  
• Attorney Carey also recently argued at the Connecticut Supreme Court in a matter (Miller’s Pond v. New London, Connecticut, et al) that presented a question of first impression regarding the applicability of federal law to an anti-trust claim brought against municipal water companies, and participated in the briefing and argument of a matter (Groton v. Mardie Lane Homes Connecticut Supreme Court 2008) that held C.G.S. § 8-26c(c) did not require the town to call a bond to build infrastructure in a failed subdivision.  The key issue was whether the granting of mortgages and other security interests in lots constituted “conveyances” for purposes of the statute.

Attorney Carey has successfully represented clients before the Connecticut Department of Public Utilities and the Connecticut Siting Council.  Most recently, he represented the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments in opposition to a water rate increase requested by the Connecticut Water Company. 

Mr. Carey may be reached at his direct extension, (860) 271-2268, or via email at  mcarey@sswbgg.com.
 

Bar Admissions:

Education:

Practice Areas: