The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Contract Law

Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3076

AC39834 - DAB Three, LLC v. LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.("In this action arising from the alleged breach of contract for the procurement of an environmental insurance policy, the plaintiff, DAB Three, LLC, appeals from the judgments rendered in favor of the defendants LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. (LFG), LandAmerica Environmental Insurance Service Agency, Inc. (LEISA), Sandra Fitzpatrick, and Debra Moser. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred (1) in dismissing its breach of contract claim against LFG for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) in rendering summary judgment in favor of LEISA, Fitzpatrick and Moser on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims against them. We agree with the plaintiff that the summary judgment rendered in favor of LEISA cannot stand. We disagree, however, with the plaintiff’s claims of error as to the dismissal of its claim against LFG and the rendering of summary judgments in favor of Fitzpatrick and Moser. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgments of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3056

AC40078 - Emeritus Senior Living v. Lepore ("The plaintiff, Emeritus Senior Living a/k/a Brookdale Woodbridge, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant, Denise Lepore, in this action filed by the plaintiff to collect the unpaid balance due for assisted living services it had provided to the defendant’s now deceased mother, Louise Rolla. The plaintiff claims that the court erred by finding that the residency agreement, to the extent it holds the defendant personally liable, as Rolla’s representative, for unpaid amounts owed by Rolla to the plaintiff, is void and unenforceable because it is (1) unconscionable and (2) against public policy. We agree and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3047

AC40896 - Sikorsky Financial Credit Union, Inc. v. Pineda ("The plaintiff, Sikorsky Financial Credit Union, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion for postmaturity postjudgment interest. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly denied the motion in light of General Statutes § 37-1 and our Supreme Court’s decision in Sikorsky Financial Credit Union, Inc. v. Butts, 315 Conn. 433, 108 A.3d 228 (2015). We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3038

AC40442 - Murallo v. United Builders Supply Co. ("The plaintiff, Randy Murallo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a trial to the court in favor of the defendant, United Builders Supply Co., Inc.The plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding that (1) the parties had not formed a contract and (2) the decking materials sold by the defendant were not defective. We conclude that the court's finding that no contract existed between the parties was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3027

AC39680 - Bracken v. Windsor Locks ("In this action for breach of a settlement agreement, the plaintiff, Michael S. Bracken, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the town of Windsor Locks. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erroneously concluded that the plaintiff’s action was barred by (1) the six year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-576, and (2) the doctrine of laches. We conclude that the central factual finding underlying the court’s conclusion that the defendant’s special defenses barred the action was clearly erroneous. We further conclude that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving that its special defenses barred the plaintiff’s action. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3007

AC40296 - Reyher v. Finkeldey ("The defendant, John A. Finkeldey, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Mark R. Reyher, a licensed real estate broker doing business as Reyher Real Estate, requiring payment of his commission. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff procured a buyer who was ready, willing and able to purchase the defendant’s property under the terms of the listing agreement. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3000

SC19721 - Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank ("A threshold jurisdictional issue in this case requires us to clarify the circumstances under which there can be an appealable final judgment when the trial court’s decision does not dispose of counts advancing alternative theories of relief. The plaintiff, Meribear Productions, Inc., brought an action against the defendants, Joan E. Frank and George A. Frank, for common-law enforcement of a foreign default judgment, breach of contract and quantum meruit. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against each of the defendants under different counts of the complaint. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment on the merits, and this court thereafter granted the defendants’ petition for certification to appeal from that judgment. Upon further review, it is apparent that the judgment was not final as to George Frank, and, therefore, the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants’ joint appeal.")


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2958

SC19878 - Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman ("The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether the thirty day deadline provided by Practice Book § 11-21, which governs motions for attorney’s fees, is directory rather than mandatory, thus affording a trial court discretion to entertain untimely motions. The plaintiff, Meadowbrook Center, Inc., a nursing facility, appeals, upon our grant of its petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court, which denied as untimely a motion filed by the defendant, Robert Buchman, seeking an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb. Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman, 169 Conn. App. 527, 529, 151 A.3d 404 (2016). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the thirty day deadline provided by Practice Book § 11-21 is mandatory and that, therefore, the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the trial court was required to exercise discretion in deciding whether to entertain the defendant’s untimely motion, and (2) even if the trial court had discretion to entertain an untimely motion for attorney’s fees, the defendant’s motion in the present case was barred as a matter of law. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2959

AC38678 - McMahon v. Middletown ("The plaintiff, Patrick T. McMahon, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant city of Middletown (city). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court contravened General Statutes § 52-178 by denying his counsel’s requests to ask leading questions during the direct examination of the city’s mayor, former mayor, and former acting deputy police chief. We decline to review this unpreserved claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2956

AC39197 - Randazzo v. Sakon ("In this amended appeal, the defendant . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the plaintiff . . . acting as trustee for A&F Foods, a general partnership. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in accepting the findings and recommendations of the attorney fact finder . . . and in rendering judgment in accordance with his recommendations. More specifically, the defendant claims that the court improperly: (1) concluded that the plaintiff's cause of action sounds in contract, rather than indemnification, and, therefore, applied the incorrect statute of limitations; (2) concluded that the statute of frauds, General Statutes § 52-550, was inapplicable to this case; and (3) accepted the finding that the town of Glastonbury (town) had imposed real estate taxes on the easement area. We dismiss the defendant's original appeal and, with respect to his amended appeal, we disagree with each of the defendant's claims and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2931

AC38910 - Ryan v. Cassella ("This is a case about a misspelled last name. The defendant, Paul A. Cassella, appeals from the denial of his motion to open the judgment of the trial court, following the granting of a motion to correct the default judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, John Ryan, in the amount of $8429.42. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly granted the motion to correct filed by the plaintiff and (2) abused its discretion in denying his motion to open. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39668 - Micek-Holt v. Papageorge ("This appeal arises from two cases, which were consolidated for trial, involving a contract for the purchase of certain real property located in Thompson. Mary Papageorge and George Papageorge appeal from the judgments of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in favor of Andrea Micek-Holt, executrix of the estate of Edward W. Micek. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2915

AC39565 - Carvalhos Masonry, LLC v. S&L Variety Contractors, LLC ("In this action stemming from a construction contract, the defendant, S&L Variety Contractors, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a bench trial in favor of the plaintiff, Carvalhos Masonry, LLC. The defendant claims that the trial court should have disqualified itself from deciding the issues of liability and damages when it sent a correspondence to both parties, after the trial but before it rendered its decision, suggesting that they stipulate to a judgment for a specific dollar amount, the exact amount that the court ultimately awarded to the plaintiff. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1889

AC38887 - Alaimo v. Alaimo ("In this action for damages based on breach of contract, the plaintiff, Benjamin M. Alaimo, appeals, following a bench trial, from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Matthew J. Alaimo. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in finding against him on the complaint and in favor of the defendant on his special defenses premised on the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1883

AC39301 - ASPIC, LLC v. Poitier ("The defendant, Brack G. Poitier, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the prejudgment remedy application filed by the plaintiff, ASPIC, LLC. The defendant claims that the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff a $1 million prejudgment remedy because he specifically had pleaded, inter alia, a defense of breach of fiduciary duties, which required the court to shift the burden to the plaintiff to establish fair dealing, and the court failed to do so. He also claims that even if the court appears to have shifted the burden, the record was devoid of evidence to demonstrate fair dealing. Finally, the defendant claims that the trial court failed to make any finding that the plaintiff had met its burden to show that there was probable cause that it would prevail in establishing that the transactions at issue were the product of fair dealing. We agree with the defendant and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1871

AC38482 - Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Searl ("The defendants, Susan E. Searl and Randy A. Searl, doing business as Subway store number 34648, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, effectively dismissing their motion to vacate an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granting the application of the plaintiff, Doctor’s Associates, Inc., to confirm that award. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court should have applied federal law, or alternatively New York law, instead of Connecticut law, in determining whether they timely filed their motion to vacate. We conclude that the court should have applied federal law in determining the timeliness of the defendants’ motion to vacate and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")

AC39135 - General Linen Service Co. v. Cedar Park Inn & Whirlpool Suites ("The defendants, Cedar Park Inn & Whirlpool Suites (Cedar Park Inn) and John G. Syragakis (collectively ‘defendants’), appeal from the denial of their motion to open a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, General Linen Service Company, Inc. A default had been ordered as a result of the defendants’ failure to comply with a discovery order and the trial court rendered judgment after a hearing in damages. The defendants claim that the trial court abused its discretion by not finding that it had lacked subject matter jurisdiction and by instead denying their motion to open because it did not satisfy the requirements of General Statutes § 52-212 (a) and Practice Book § 17-43. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38233 - United Amusement & Vending Co. v. Sabia ("In this action for breach of contract arising out of a commercial lease, the defendant, Daniel Sabia, appeals, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, United Amusements & Vending Company, on the plaintiff’s single count complaint. The trial court, Hon. Edward F. Stodolink, judge trial referee, awarded $15,000 in damages. The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court (1) failed to find the contract unenforceable based on the defendant’s special defenses of mistake and duress; (2) awarded damages based on unconscionable provisions of the contract; and (3) awarded damages inconsistent with the contract and evidence. We agree with the defendant’s third claim. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the court and remand the case for a hearing in damages. We otherwise affirm the court’s judgment.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=850

AC39526 - Finney v. Cameron's Auto Towing Repair ("The plaintiff, John K. Finney, commenced this action alleging that the defendant, Cameron’s Auto Towing Repair, breached its contract to repair his vehicle. The defendant denied that it had agreed to repair the plaintiff’s vehicle and filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff had failed to pay it for the towing and storage of his vehicle, and, thus, that he had abandoned it. The plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant on his complaint and the defendant’s counterclaim. We conclude that the trial court properly determined that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s complaint because it established that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to its right to prevail on the plaintiff’s claim. We further conclude, however, that the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on its counterclaim against the plaintiff because the defendant failed to state any basis upon which it was entitled to judgment on the claim therein pleaded, either in its motion for summary judgment or in its supporting memorandum of law. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=829

AC38813 - Estela v. Bristol Hospital, Inc. ("This appeal is the latest installment in a long and protracted litigation between the parties. The plaintiff, Jose Estela, a physician, appeals from the trial court’s judgment that his case could not be maintained under the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592 (a), because his first action against the defendant, Bristol Hospital, Inc., was dismissed for 'serious disciplinary reasons' and not as a matter of form. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the defendant waived the right to challenge the applicability of § 52-592 (a); (2) the court incorporated a different and higher standard into its decision and thus deprived him of his rights under Ruddock v. Burrowes, 243 Conn. 569, 706 A.2d 967 (1998), by limiting the § 52- 592 (a) hearing to the standard set forth in General Statutes § 52-212; (3) his alleged discovery noncompliance occurred in circumstances such as mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect; and (4) § 52-592 (a) applies to any judgment of nonsuit. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=816

SC19953 - Corsair Special Situations Fund, L.P. v. Engineered Framing Systems, Inc. (“The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sought this court’s advice as to whether a Connecticut state marshal is entitled to the statutory fee of 15 percent on the amount of the execution ‘for the levy of an execution, when the money is actually collected and paid over, or the debt . . . is secured by the officer’; General Statutes § 52-261 (a) (F); when the marshal properly served the writ of execution on a third party holding a debt owed to the judgment debtor, but the judgment creditor received money from the third party only after a court issued a turnover order.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199b (d), we accepted certification on the following questions from the Second Circuit:

‘(1) Was [intervenor Connecticut State] Marshal [Mark A.] Pesiri entitled to a [15] percent fee under the terms of [§ 52-261 (a) (F)]?

‘(2) In answering the first question, does it matter that the writ was ignored and that the monies that were the subject of the writ were procured only after the judgment creditor, not the marshal, pursued further enforcement proceedings in the courts?’ Corsair Special Situations Fund, L.P. v. Engineered Framing Systems, Inc., 863 F.3d 176, 183 (2d Cir. 2017).

We answer the first question: Yes. We answer the second question: No.”)


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=804

AC38669 - Isenburg v. Isenburg ("The plaintiff, Elizabeth Isenburg, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, awarding her limited damages and other relief against the defendant, Matthew Isenburg, on multiple claims against him. The following facts, as found by the trial court, are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant were in a relationship for fourteen years, from 1998 to 2012. During that period, the plaintiff lived in the defendant’s home. Long before the parties’ relationship began, the defendant owned an extensive collection of early photographs and photographic ephemera (photographic collection), which he ultimately sold in 2012 for fifteen million dollars. Several months after the sale of the photographic collection, the parties’ relationship ended, and the plaintiff moved out of the defendant’s home." ...

"On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred by: (1) excluding large portions of certain exhibits she had offered into evidence at trial; (2) not recusing itself, sua sponte, from the case; (3) finding that there was no express or implied contract between her and the defendant; (4) finding that the defendant did not owe her any fiduciary duty, much less breach such a duty to her; and (5) failing to award her certain other specific damages and property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=778

AC39304 - Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C. v. Cotrone ("The defendant, Jerry P. Cotrone, appeals from the judgment rendered after a bench trial in favor of the plaintiff, Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C., awarding damages in the amount of $32,119.06 on the plaintiff’s claim for unpaid legal fees. The defendant claims on appeal that the court erred in restoring the plaintiff’s case to the docket, in the absence of a timely filed motion to restore, after the plaintiff filed a withdrawal of its action. We agree with the defendant and, thus, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


1 2 3 4