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

Tort Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4351

SC20226 - Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University ("This appeal involves a commercial dispute arising in the unique context of an undergraduate housing program. The plaintiffs are Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University at Middletown (Kent), which owns a Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity house on the Wesleyan University campus (DKE House); the Gamma Phi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon at Wesleyan (DKE); and Jordan Jancze, who, at the time of trial, was a Wesleyan student and DKE member. The defendants include Wesleyan University (Wesleyan or the university); Wesleyan's president, Michael S. Roth; and Wesleyan's vice president for student affairs, Michael J. Whaley. Following Wesleyan's September, 2014 announcement that all residential fraternities on campus would be required to coeducate, and following a series of unsuccessful negotiations between the parties to establish a mutually agreeable coeducation plan, Wesleyan notified Kent and DKE that they would no longer be eligible to participate in the university's program housing system as of the 2015–16 academic year and, therefore, that Wesleyan students no longer could reside in or use the DKE House. In response, the plaintiffs commenced the present action, alleging promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference with business expectancies, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and seeking damages, attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on all counts and awarded Kent $386,000 in damages. In addition, the trial court, acting pursuant to CUTPA, awarded the plaintiffs $398,129 in attorney's fees and $13,234.44 in costs, and issued a mandatory injunction requiring, among other things, that Wesleyan enter into a new contract with Kent and DKE, resume housing Wesleyan students in the DKE House, and give DKE three years in which to coeducate.

On appeal, the defendants raise various challenges to the judgment, including claims concerning the trial court's jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to both liability and damages. The defendants also contend that the trial court abused its discretion or otherwise acted contrary to law in awarding the plaintiffs injunctive relief. We conclude that, although there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defendants liable, the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding the legal effects of the parties' contract and the proper means of calculating damages. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4346

AC42905 - Anderson v. Bloomfield ("In this third-party beneficiary breach of contract case, the plaintiff, Joann Anderson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her complaint against the defendant Plourde Enterprises, LLC, on the ground that she lacks standing to pursue the action. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that she was not an intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between the defendant and the town of Bloomfield (town), to whom the defendant owed a direct obligation. She argues that the contract at issue, at the very least, was ambiguous as to the intent of the defendant and the town and, therefore, the court should have reserved this question for the fact finder. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4290

AC41486 - Northeast Builders Supply & Home Centers, LLC v. RMM Consulting, LLC ("On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff's motion to strike four counts of their counterclaim on the ground that the counts were improperly joined because they failed the transaction test set forth in Practice Book § 10-10, and (2) rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on its complaint and on the sole remaining count of the counterclaim because the court (a) incorrectly determined that the plaintiff was the seller of the goods at issue, (b) wrongly concluded that the individual defendants, Jones and Morrill, were liable as buyers of the goods rather than as guarantors only, (c) failed to properly consider the defendants' defense of revocation of acceptance, (d) rendered judgment for the plaintiff despite having found that some of the goods at issue were defective and that the plaintiff had refused to remedy or replace them, and (e) incorrectly found that the plaintiff proved its damages to a reasonable degree of certainty. We conclude that the court properly granted the motion to strike, but that the form of the judgment rendered on the stricken counts of the counterclaim was incorrect, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment on the stricken counts of the counterclaim and remand with direction to render a judgment of dismissal on those counts. We otherwise affirm the judgment of the court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4277

AC39890, AC40558 - Indoor Billboard Northwest, Inc. v. M2 Systems Corp. ("In Docket No. AC 39890, the defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court with respect to the unjust enrichment cause of action brought by the plaintiffs. The defendant claims that the court erred in the following ways: (1) by awarding damages to a person who was neither a plaintiff in the underlying action nor a nonparty who had assigned his interest to a plaintiff in the underlying action; (2) by determining that the defendant was not entitled to a setoff; (3) by rejecting its special defense of judicial estoppel; (4) by finding that the note executed by the defendant in favor of a third party had been amended; (5) by finding that the defendant had been unjustly enriched as a result of the plaintiffs' funds; (6) by finding that cross-traded subnotes, which had been exchanged between some of the plaintiffs' accounts, had unjustly enriched the defendant; (7) by finding that the defendant's loan obligation to a third party was satisfied in part with the use of the plaintiffs' funds; and (8) by finding that the plaintiffs had satisfied in part the defendant's debt obligation to a third party despite the fact that the debt was not discharged pursuant to the terms of the note at issue.

Docket No. AC 40558 is the plaintiffs' appeal from the court's decision denying their postverdict motion for attorney's fees. In their appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred by denying their motion for attorney's fees and expenses after rendering judgment in their favor with respect to their unjust enrichment cause of action. We agree with the first claim raised by the defendant in Docket No. AC 39890 and, consequently, reverse the portion of the judgment that is the subject of that claim. With respect to the remainder of the claims raised by the defendant in Docket No. AC 39890 and the claim raised by the plaintiffs in Docket No. AC 40558, we affirm the judgment and the decision of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4181

AC42545 - Silver Hill Hospital, Inc. v. Kessler ("The defendant, Dawn Kessler, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a trial before an attorney fact finder, in favor of the plaintiff, Silver Hill Hospital, Inc., on the plaintiff’s complaint in the amount of $17,087.15. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the fact finder's conclusions were not based on evidence presented at trial, (2) the fact finder failed to consider the issue of whether the plaintiff was responsible for resolving a coverage dispute issue with Medicare, (3) the court improperly denied her objections to the fact finder's report, and (4) General Statutes § 19a-673d operates as a statutory bar to the plaintiff's debt collection action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4161

AC42182 - Manere v. Collins ("The plaintiff, Robert Manere, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the defendants, Peter Collins and BAHR, LLC (BAHR). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that BAHR's counterclaim stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, (2) applied a six year statute of limitations to BAHR's counterclaim, and (3) rejected his application to dissolve BAHR on the ground of oppression pursuant to General Statutes § 34-267 (a) (5), Connecticut's limited liability company dissolution statute. We agree with the plaintiff's second and third claims and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4150

AC41568, AC42396 - Clinton v. Aspinwall ("In this breach of contract and fiduciary duty case, the defendants, Michael E. Aspinwall, Steven F. Piaker, and David W. Young, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the jury, in favor of the plaintiff, John B. Clinton. The parties' dispute arises out of their ownership and operation of CCP Equity Partners, LLC (CCP). The defendants' principal claim on appeal is that the court erred in its construction of the operating agreement that governed CCP, resulting in multiple erroneous rulings throughout the course of the litigation. The defendants specifically claim that the court improperly (1) denied their motion to strike, (2) denied their motion for summary judgment, (3) denied their motion in limine, (4) charged the jury, (5) denied their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion to set aside the verdict (posttrial motions), and (6) awarded the plaintiff attorney's fees and costs. We agree that the court improperly construed portions of the agreement and reverse the judgment in part and affirm it in part, and remand the case for a new hearing on the issue of attorney's fees and costs.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4119

AC42047 - Falcigno v. Falcigno (Breach of fiduciary duty; "Following a trial to the court, the plaintiff, David Falcigno, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Stephen Falcigno, on his cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. The defendant cross appeals from the judgment of the court, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, on the defendant's counterclaim for breach of the representations and warranties contained in an agreement signed by the plaintiff. In his appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding that the defendant proved, by clear and convincing evidence, fair dealing and full disclosure as to the defendant's purchase of the plaintiff's minority shares of stock. In his cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly failed to award him attorney's fees pursuant to the agreement that the plaintiff signed as part of the stock transaction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court")

AC41283 - Demattio v. Plunkett (Breach of contract; violation of Home Improvement Act (§ 20-418 et seq.); judicial bias; "The self-represented plaintiff contractor, Arthur M. DeMattio, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a bench trial, in favor of the defendant homeowners, Robert Plunkett and Karen Plunkett, on the plaintiff's complaint and the defendants' counterclaim in the amount of $21,720.34. On appeal, the plaintiff's claims distill to whether the trial court erred by (1) concluding that the home improvement contract entered into among the parties (contract) was invalid and unenforceable against the defendants as a result of the contract's noncompliance with the Home Improvement Act (HIA), General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., (2) making numerous factual findings contrary to the evidence presented at trial, (3) failing to determine that the defendants did not mitigate their damages, (4) improperly calculating its damages award, and (5) acting in a biased manner toward the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4096

SC20392 - Shoreline Shellfish, LLC v. Branford (Breach of contract; promissory estoppel; right of first refusal; "Given the geography of our state, which is bounded on the south by the Long Island Sound, shellfishing has a long and rich history in Connecticut. The first Connecticut laws regulating the taking of shellfish were created before the revolution, in the early eighteenth century. Connecticut State Register and Manual (2019) p. 825. By the late nineteenth century, oyster farming was a major contributor to the state's economy. Id. For a time, Connecticut had the largest fleet of oyster steamers in the world. Id. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, water pollution, disease, overharvesting, and other factors decimated historically abundant shellfish populations, but cleaner water and better management practices contributed to a rebounding shellfish population in recent years. The Nature Conservancy, "Private Shellfish Grounds in Connecticut: An Assessment of Law, Policy, Practice and Spatial Data" (January, 2010) p. 6. The shellfishing industry in Connecticut, too, has begun to rebound; today, the industry makes more than $30 million in annual sales.

The waters of the Sound are both a natural and an economic resource of the state, guarded jealously. Predictably, control over the shellfish industry is also guarded jealously and has long been subject to state and local legislation, including state legislation unique to a particular town in the present case, the defendant, the town of Branford. In this appeal, we are asked to resolve a dispute that has arisen not just between a local business and the town, but among that town's governing entities. At its core, this case involves a dispute over who has authority to lease shellfishing beds on the town's behalf, Branford's Shellfish Commission (commission) or its Board of Selectmen (selectmen).

The plaintiffs, Shellfish Partners, Ltd., and its general partner, Shoreline Shellfish, LLC, which had been granted the right of first refusal by the commission to lease certain shellfishing grounds located in Branford, appeal from the trial court's decision to render summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the selectmen, and not the commission, had authority to bind the defendant to agreements relating to the leasing of shellfishing grounds pursuant to General Statutes § 26-266 and chapter 88 of the Branford Town Code (code). Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly interpreted § 26-266 (a), which gives charge of shellfishing grounds to "[t]he selectmen . . . or shellfish commission," to grant both the commission and the selectmen authority to lease shellfishing grounds within the town, and, therefore, that the ordinance, § 88-8 of the code, which splits authority between the commission and the selectmen, is invalid on this basis. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claim that, even if the trial court properly interpreted § 26-266 and the ordinance as granting authority to both the commission and the selectmen, the trial court improperly interpreted the meaning of the phrase "owned by" in the ordinance, and, thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant owned the shellfishing ground at issue. We agree with the plaintiffs that, assuming that the ordinance does not conflict with § 26-266, on the basis of the clear and unambiguous language of the ordinance, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant "owned" the shellfishing ground at issue. Therefore, the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4077

AC42511 - Norwalk Medical Group, P.C. v. Yee (Arbitration; application to vacate arbitration award; application to confirm arbitration award; "Our courts "undertake judicial review of arbitration awards in a manner designed to minimize interference with an efficient and economical system of alternative dispute resolution. . . . Such a limited scope of judicial review is warranted given the fact that the parties voluntarily bargained for the decision of the arbitrator and, as such, the parties are presumed to have assumed the risk of and waived objection to that decision." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 258 Conn. 101, 110, 779 A.2d 737 (2001). Led by these overarching principles, we consider the present appeal challenging the propriety of an arbitration award rendered in favor of the defendant, Arthur Yee. The plaintiffs, The Norwalk Medical Group, P.C. (medical group), and thirteen individual physicians (physicians) who formerly were members of the medical group, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their application to vacate an arbitration award and the judgment of the trial court granting the application to confirm the arbitration award filed by the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly confirmed the award because it was not mutual, final and definite due to the failure of the arbitrator to (1) allocate arbitration costs, expenses and compensation and (2) set forth a reasoned award with respect to the issue of attorney's fees. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4065

AC42400 - Amity Partners v. Woodbridge Associates, L.P. (Contracts; summary judgment; best evidence rule; "The plaintiff, Amity Partners, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants Woodbridge Associates, L.P., and Monqidh M. Al-Sawwaf. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that the best evidence rule barred the plaintiff's reliance on certain deposition testimony in support of its opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4058

SC20329 - E. I. du Ponte de Nemours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp. (Breach of Contract; Whether, under New York law, the plaintiff was required to comply strictly with contractual notice provisions in order to exercise its right to indemnification under the contract. "The principal issue in this appeal is whether New York law requires a party to strictly comply with a notice provision in a commercial contract in order to recover for the other party's breach of the contract. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), had not strictly complied with the notice provisions of an asset purchase agreement (APA) and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, Chemtura Corporation. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly required strict compliance with the APA's notice provisions because New York law distinguishes between public contracts and private commercial contracts, and does not require strict compliance in commercial contracts when the contracting party receives actual notice and suffers no prejudice from the deviation. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Civil Procedure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4055

AC41986 - Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC (Sanctions; whether trial court's order of sanctions met requirements for evaluating whether court's order constituted abuse of discretion; "This appeal involves a challenge to sanctions imposed by the trial court to remedy extensive discovery abuses by the defendants that frustrated the plaintiff's attempt to collect on a significant monetary judgment. The defendants, Pursuit Opportunity Fund I, L.P. (POF), Pursuit Opportunity Fund I Master Ltd. (POF Master), Pursuit Capital Management Fund I, L.P. (PCM), Pursuit Capital Master (Cayman) Ltd. (PCM Master), Pursuit Investment Management, LLC (PIM), Northeast Capital Management, LLC (Northeast), Anthony Schepis, and Frank Canelas, Jr., appeal from the trial court's order of sanctions, in which the court awarded the plaintiff, Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P., attorney's fees and litigation costs for the defendants' discovery abuses. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court's order of sanctions constituted an abuse of discretion because the order failed to meet the three requirements that a trial court must deem satisfied before imposing sanctions and that this court must analyze to determine whether the trial court's order constituted an abuse of discretion. See Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 328 Conn. 60, 70–71, 176 A.3d 1167 (2018) (citing Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 17–18, 776 A.2d 1115 (2001)). We disagree with the defendants' claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4054

AC42306 - Winakor v. Savalle (Breach of contract; violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.); violation of Home Improvement Act (§ 20-418 et seq.); attorney's fees; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether services provided by a contractor as part of the construction of a new residence fell outside of the statutory purview of the Home Improvement Act (Improvement Act), General Statutes § 20-418 et seq. The defendant, Vincent Savalle, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Lee Winakor, in which the court concluded that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff in the amount of $100,173.32 for breach of contract, violation of the Improvement Act, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110b et seq. On appeal, the defendant claims, among other things, that the trial court improperly rendered judgment in favor the plaintiff on (1) the CUTPA count because it predicated CUTPA liability on the erroneous determination that the defendant had violated the Improvement Act, and (2) the breach of contract count because there was insufficient evidence to establish causation, which is necessary to prove damages. The defendant also claims that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff. We agree with the defendant on his claim regarding the improper imposition of CUTPA liability and the award of attorney's fees but disagree with him on his claim that the court improperly found for the plaintiff on the count alleging a breach of contract. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4045

AC41350, AC41351 - Pack 2000, Inc. v. Cushman (Leases; options to purchase real property; specific performance; "In these consolidated appeals, the plaintiff, Pack 2000, Inc., appeals from the judgments of the trial court, which determined the amount due the defendant, Eugene C. Cushman, for two properties he had contracted to sell to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in concluding that (1) the purchase prices for the properties, located in Groton and New London, should be based on their current appraised values, rather than their appraised values in 2003, (2) the plaintiff was required to pay use and occupancy for its continued use of the Groton property retroactive to June 1, 2014, until the closing of the sale of the property to the plaintiff, and (3) the plaintiff was not entitled to credits toward the purchase price of each property for moneys paid as rent or use and occupancy after it exercised its options to purchase the properties. The defendant filed cross appeals, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to use the current appraised value set by his appraiser as the purchase price for the Groton property. We agree with the plaintiff on all of its claims and disagree with the defendant as to his cross appeals. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the cases with direction to determine the purchase prices of the properties pursuant to the plaintiff’s exercise of its options to purchase the properties in 2003, that the court credit against those purchase prices any payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant for use of the properties after its exercise of its purchase options, and, to the extent that the payments to the defendant on each property, after the option became effective, exceeded the purchase price of that property, that the court order any overpayment be refunded to the plaintiff.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4048

AC42748 - Sackman v. Quinlan (Conversion; unjust enrichment; tortious interference with contract; whether trial court abused its discretion when it granted motion for permission to file motion for summary judgment; "This appeal arises from a dispute between the self-represented plaintiffs, the biological children of William Sackman, Jr. (William), from his marriage to Elaine Sackman (Elaine), and the defendants, who are the children of William's second wife, Nancy L. Sackman (Nancy), and one of the children's spouse. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendants on a motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly (1) allowed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment, (2) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (3) failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42654 - Audibert v. Halle (Negligence; motion to set aside verdict and for new trial; "The plaintiff, Carole Audibert, brought this personal injury action against the defendant, Wesley Halle, for injuries she alleges she sustained as the result of an automobile accident on April 12, 2013, caused by the defendant's negligence. The case was tried to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in accordance with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly admitted irrelevant evidence, (2) the court improperly failed to provide a curative instruction to the jury, (3) the defendant's counsel violated rule 3.4 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct during closing argument, depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial, and (4) the court abused its discretion by failing to set aside the verdict and to grant the plaintiff a new trial. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4035

AC40066 - Sclafani Properties, LLC v. Sport-N-Life Distributing, LLC (Breach of lease; attorney trial referee; attorney's fees; "The plaintiff, Sclafani Properties, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding it damages and attorney's fees for the failure of the defendants, Sport-N-Life Distributing, LLC (lessee), and its president, Gilbert Beck (guarantor), to pay amounts due to the plaintiff under a commercial lease for property located at 482 Glenbrook Road in Stamford (property) The plaintiff claims that the court (1) erred when it failed to include in its judgment for the plaintiff an amount for unpaid real estate taxes and (2) abused its discretion in awarding only $6391.63 in attorney's fees. We reverse in part the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4028

AC42920 - Prime Bank v. Vitano, Inc. (Statute of limitations; guarantee of promissory note; "The plaintiff, Prime Bank, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Vitano, Inc. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding that its cause of action to recover from the defendant on a promissory note accrued on October 18, 2011, and was barred by the statute of limitations in General Statutes § 52-576 on October 18, 2017. The plaintiff also claims that the court erred in failing to conclude that there was an acknowledgement of the debt by the defendant, thereby tolling the statute of limitations. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4016

AC41551 - Pursuit Partners, LLC v. Reed Smith, LLP (Breach of contract; motion for summary judgment; claim that trial court improperly concluded that defendant law firm was bound by confidentiality provision of settlement agreement only to extent of its client; "The plaintiffs Pursuit Investment Management, LLC (PIM), Pursuit Opportunity Fund I, LP (POF), and Pursuit Capital Management Fund I, LP (PCM) (plaintiffs), appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant Reed Smith, LLP (Reed Smith). POF and PCM are hedge funds to which PIM provided investment management and advisory services. Reed Smith is a law firm that represented Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. (Alpha Beta), an investor in POF and PCM. In the present action, the plaintiffs claim that Reed Smith violated a confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement executed by, among others, Alpha Beta and the plaintiffs, to which Reed Smith was a signatory. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by concluding that (1) the language of the settlement agreement bound Reed Smith to the confidentiality provision only to the extent of its principal, Alpha Beta, and (2) a finding in a related action, Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC, 193 Conn. App. 381, 415, 219 A.3d 801 (2019), cert. denied, 334 Conn. 911, 221 A.3d 446 (2020) (Alpha Beta) —namely, that the Pursuit Parties' material breach of the settlement agreement effectively released Alpha Beta from its confidentiality obligations thereunder—was entitled to collateral estoppel effect that extended to Reed Smith, as an agent of Alpha Beta. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3996

AC42522 - Berger v. Deutermann (Breach of contract; "In this breach of contract action in connection with the attempted sale of real property by the defendants, Guy Deutermann and Diane Deutermann, the self-represented plaintiff, Dana Berger, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants on all counts of her complaint. She contends that the court (1) failed to recognize the defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations in trial exhibits, (2) improperly concluded that the roof of the property was properly installed, (3) failed to consider Diane Deutermann's answers to certain interrogatories that conflicted with Guy Deutermann's testimony, (4) improperly concluded that Guy Deutermann acted under an honestly held claim of right in retaining the plaintiff's deposit funds, and (5) improperly concluded that she failed to close on the purchase of the property and that the defendants rightfully retained her $12,000 deposit pursuant to the parties' agreement. We decline to reach the merits of the plaintiff's appeal due to an inadequate record.Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42270 - Factor King, LLC v. Housing Authority (Summary judgment; "The plaintiff, Factor King, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant Housing Authority for the City of Meriden. The question presented in this appeal is whether, pursuant to a factoring and security agreement between a factor (purchaser) and a seller, the purchaser is entitled to direct payment of a receivable due to the seller from an account not purchased through the agreement, but in which the purchaser has a security interest to secure the seller's obligations as delineated in the agreement. Because we answer that question in the negative, we affirm the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant.")


1 2 3 4 5 6 7