Court Rulings

The plaintiff sought equitable distribution of certain real property containing residential and equestrian buildings that she and the defendant owned as tenants in common and payment of just compensation for her undi- vided 25 percent minimal interest in the property. The parties entered into an oral stipulation before the trial court but were unable to agree on the fair market value of the property. Both parties presented expert testimony to the court from real estate appraisers. The court agreed with the defendant's expert appraiser, determined the fair market value to be $1,110,000 and issued certain orders regarding payment to the plaintiff for her undivided minimal interest. Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court committed plain error and made clearly erroneous findings of fact in regard to the highest and best use of the property. Held: 1. The plaintiff could not prevail on her claim that the trial court committed plain error when it determined the highest and best use of the property without reviewing applicable zoning regulations because she did not meet either prong of the plain error doctrine: the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the trial court made a plain and obvious error that affected the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings, as the parties stipulated that the plaintiff had only a minimal interest in the property and that a partition in kind or by sale would not better serve their interests, the hearing before the court was for the sole purpose of having it determine the fair market value of the property, no evidence was submitted to the court regarding the possibility of obtaining any zoning variance and the court did not conclude that the current use of the property would not be permitted to continue, such that the court's determination of the highest and best use and fair market value of the property did not require the review of applicable zoning regulations; moreo

The plaintiffs, D and M, sought to recover damages from the defendant B Co. for its alleged negligence, recklessness, and civil conspiracy, and for its alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) and the Connecticut Product Liability Act (§ 52-572m et seq.), in connection with a surgical procedure performed at B Co.'s hospital. Specifically, in 2009, D's obstetrician and gynecologist implanted a mesh sling manufactured by the defendant A Co. in D's body for the purpose of treating her stress urinary incontinence. Although D's obstetrician and gynecologist was not an employee of B Co., she has privileges to practice at B Co.'s hospital, where the procedure occurred. The sling implanted in D was stocked by B Co.'s hospital at the request of some of the physicians who have privileges there, and B Co. paid A Co. $900 for the sling and then billed D's health insurance carrier $4230 for it. In 2014, D was diagnosed with ''mesh exposure'' and had the sling removed. In 2015, the plaintiffs commenced this action against A Co. and B Co. but subsequently withdrew their claims against A Co. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that B Co. had engaged in the business of placing A Co.'s slings into the stream of commerce by purchasing them from A Co., stocking and marketing them, and selling them to patients and medical professionals. The trial court granted B Co.'s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs' prod- uct liability claim failed because B Co. was not a product seller and that the plaintiffs' CUTPA and common-law claims were time barred under the three year statutes (§§ 42-110g (f), 52-577 and 52-584) of limitations and repose. The trial court also determined that the limitation and repose periods had not been tolled by either the continuing course of conduct or the fraudulent concealment doctrine. On the plaintiffs' appeal, held: 1. The trial court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of m

The plaintiffs, D and M, sought to recover damages from the defendant B Co. for its alleged negligence, recklessness, and civil conspiracy, and for its alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) and the Connecticut Product Liability Act (§ 52-572m et seq.), in connection with a surgical procedure performed at B Co.'s hospital. Specifically, in 2009, D's obstetrician and gynecologist implanted a mesh sling manufactured by the defendant A Co. in D's body for the purpose of treating her stress urinary incontinence. Although D's obstetrician and gynecologist was not an employee of B Co., she has privileges to practice at B Co.'s hospital, where the procedure occurred. The sling implanted in D was stocked by B Co.'s hospital at the request of some of the physicians who have privileges there, and B Co. paid A Co. $900 for the sling and then billed D's health insurance carrier $4230 for it. In 2014, D was diagnosed with ''mesh exposure'' and had the sling removed. In 2015, the plaintiffs commenced this action against A Co. and B Co. but subsequently withdrew their claims against A Co. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that B Co. had engaged in the business of placing A Co.'s slings into the stream of commerce by purchasing them from A Co., stocking and marketing them, and selling them to patients and medical professionals. The trial court granted B Co.'s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs' prod- uct liability claim failed because B Co. was not a product seller and that the plaintiffs' CUTPA and common-law claims were time barred under the three year statutes (§§ 42-110g (f), 52-577 and 52-584) of limitations and repose. The trial court also determined that the limitation and repose periods had not been tolled by either the continuing course of conduct or the fraudulent concealment doctrine. On the plaintiffs' appeal, held: 1. The trial court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of m

CIVIL - writ of restitution landlord tenant past due rent objections to the magistrate's decision plain error witness credibility lack of exhibits escrow retaliatory eviction