Anthony E. Grillo

This case involved fifty-five tenants suing landlords who owned older apartment buildings in New Britain for collecting rents without obtaining required certificates of occupancy after vacancies, despite numerous housing and health code violations that rendered the units uninhabitable. The court held that the landlords violated General Statutes §§ 47a-5 and 47a-57 by renting without certificates and that this conduct, along with the collection of $58,695 in rents, constituted unfair or deceptive acts under CUTPA. The trial court awarded the tenants damages equal to the rents collected (with a limited setoff for reasonable use and occupancy value on three units), enjoined further rent collection or evictions without certificates, and appointed a receiver of rents. The core reasoning was that the statutes impose a duty on landlords to secure certificates before habitation and bar recovery of rents without them, making the landlords' actions unfair practices under CUTPA for which actual damages could be recovered.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an insurance agency suing to recover unpaid premiums from a marina after issuing policies in 1977, where the plaintiff alleged fraudulent misrepresentation by defendant E. Stuart Mitchell and the Mitchell Company based on a worthless check that led the agency to release prejudgment attachments on boats. The trial court found in favor of the defendants, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove fraud. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence did not show the check was issued for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to drop its lawsuit and release the attachments, as required for an actionable misrepresentation. The court noted no evidence that the check's delivery was conditional on releasing the attachments or that Mitchell intended to cause that action.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over a promissory note for the purchase of school stock, where the defendants defaulted and the parties disagreed about enforcing an arbitration clause in an addendum signed only by the defendants. The plaintiff sought a court order to compel arbitration under state statutes, and after arbitration proceeded and resulted in an award against the defendants, the trial court confirmed it. The appellate court upheld the award, ruling that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable despite the plaintiff's lack of signature because the statute requires only a written agreement and the defendants had signed it, initiated arbitration, and participated in the proceedings. The court further held that the defendants were estopped from challenging the agreement after accepting its benefits and that the award conformed to the submission without evidence of arbitrator bias or other statutory grounds for vacating it.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a former husband's 1981 motion to modify or terminate a $25 weekly alimony award ordered in a 1974 divorce decree that also transferred the family home, car, and business interest to the former wife. The trial court denied the motion, finding no substantial change in circumstances, and the appellate court affirmed. The plaintiff argued that a 1975 financial affidavit showing his net weekly income at $139.38 (versus $98 in 1974) should be given collateral estoppel effect and demonstrated a change justifying relief, but the court held the 1975 figure was not before the original referee, was never litigated due to the dismissed appeal, and could not support modification. The court further noted that the former wife's improved finances, including proceeds from the cottage and business draws, were foreseeable at dissolution and did not meet the statutory threshold under General Statutes § 46b-86(a) for altering the award.

family law

The plaintiff sued the defendant for personal injuries from a car collision at a T-intersection, alleging negligent turning and encroachment into his lane; the defendants denied negligence and asserted contributory negligence as a special defense. After a jury returned a general verdict for the defendants, the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict, leading to this appeal on claims of error in the jury charge on proximate causation (including the substantial-factor test and comparative negligence), admission of expert testimony via hypothetical, and denial of the motion. The appellate court examined the evidence of speeds, positions, and witness accounts, along with the trial court's instructions referencing statutory duties like driving in the right lane, and concluded that the charge properly framed the issues without reversible error.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Walsh v. Walsh, the parties' 1979 marriage dissolution decree incorporated a stipulation under which the wife paid the husband monthly while they shared an apartment to support their adult children's college expenses, with the husband covering most other costs, and the judgment explicitly noted it was without prejudice to reopening. In 1981 the wife moved to modify the judgment, and the trial court ordered the husband to pay her weekly alimony of $92.50 after the parties began living separately. On appeal the husband argued that no alimony had been awarded originally, that res judicata barred modification, and that the court failed to follow statutory criteria or hear sufficient evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the temporary, conditional nature of the original orders and the without-prejudice language preserved jurisdiction to modify, that changed circumstances justified alimony, and that the parties had acquiesced in the procedure used.

family law