AC45040 - Bradley v. Yovino (“This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiffs, Dhameer Bradley and Malik St. Hilaire, two former students of the defendant Sacred Heart University, Inc. (university), against the university and the defendant Nikki Yovino. Yovino, a fellow student at the university, accused the plaintiffs of sexually assaulting her but later recanted her allegations and pleaded guilty to the charges of falsely reporting an incident in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-180c and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a. In this action, the plaintiffs allege that Yovino committed various torts against them by falsely accusing them of sexual assault and that the university breached its contract with them in the manner in which it conducted an investigation into Yovino’s accusations and by suspending them from the university.

Bradley appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the university as to the count of the complaint brought by him against the university. On appeal, he claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to compel a round of second depositions of certain university employees and his related motion for an extension of time to respond to the university’s motion for summary judgment, (2) rendered summary judgment against him without permitting oral argument on the university’s motion in violation of Practice Book § 11-18, and (3) denied his motion for reargument of his motion to compel and the summary judgment rendered against him. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradley’s motion to compel a second round of depositions or his motion for an extension of time. We also conclude that, although the court improperly deprived the plaintiff of oral argument pursuant to Practice Book § 11-18, that error was harmless because, in light of the procedural posture of this case, there is not a reasonable probability that oral argument would have resulted in the trial court denying the motion for summary judgment. Finally, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradley’s motion for reargument. Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment rendered against Bradley and in favor of the university.”)