Page 38 - CLT061421

38 ■ JUNE 14, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
Defendant Sarris left his employment with plaintiff, Plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell
and began working for defendant Dzialo, Picket on the sidewalk outside a public library. Plain-
& Allen. Plaintiff brought a 14-count complaint tiff said she fell “as a result of a large, uneven
against defendants, with attorney Connelli rep- crack in the concrete patch covered with a layer
resenting the plaintiff. Defendants moved to dis- of ice.” Plaintiff brought a negligence claim
qualify Connelli, asserting that he also represented against the defendant Town and the Director
defendant DP&A in a motor vehicle negligence ac- of Public Works, and the defendants moved
tion, and would therefore be in violation of rule 1.7 for summary judgment based on the ongoing
of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court storm doctrine. The court noted that, accord-
found that Connelli was retained by defendant ing to the meteorologist’s report, there was a
DP&A as a testimonial expert in the negligence ac- four to six hour period of snow and freezing
tion, rather than a consulting expert, and therefore rain. Plaintiff testified that she and her hus-
there was no rules violation. The court reasoned band waited until the snow stopped to drive to
that the nature of the arrangement provided there the library. The plaintiff objected to summary
was no attorney-client relationship formed between judgment, arguing there was a genuine issue of
Connelli and DP&A because Connelli only provid- material fact if there was no precipitation at
ed general expert testimony as to legal billing. The the time of the slip and fall. The court agreed,
court denied the motion to disqualify. finding there was a genuine issue as to whether
there was an ongoing storm, and denied sum-
PERSONAL INJURY mary judgment.

Motion for Summary Judgment Denied PERSONAL INJURY •
in Slip and Fall Case MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

CASE: Figueroa v. Golub Corp.
COURT: New Britain J.D. CUTPA Counts Stricken in Dental
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6059695 Malpractice Suit
COURT OPINION BY: Wiese
DATE: May 19, 2021 • PAGES: 3 CASE: Holland v. Aspen Dental Mgmt. LLC
A food market, who moved for summary judg- COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven
ment against a fall victim because there was no DOC. NO.: CV-20-6104362
notice of any spill, failed to show that summary COURT OPINION BY: Wilson
judgment was justified. The defendants, Golub DATE: May 19, 2021 • PAGES: 15
Corporation and Price Chopper, Inc., filed for Plaintiff was treated by a dentist who was
summary judgment against the plaintiff, Noemi listed as a service provider of defendant, a
Figueroa, on grounds that they had no actual or nationwide network of licensed dentistry of-
constructive notice of any spill that occurred. fices. The dentist performed unnecessary pro-
More specifically, the defendants alleged that the cedures and misdiagnosed cavities in plain-
spill existed for less than seven minutes, there was tiff’s mouth, and plaintiff brought claims
less than sixteen minutes between the time of the against defendant for, among other things,
spill and the last check by an employee, and no violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
employee actually received reports of the spill. Practices Act. Defendant moved to strike, ar-
After reviewing the case, the court disagreed that guing the plaintiff’s claims sounded in dental
summary judgment was warranted as there were malpractice and did not fall within CUTPA.
still issues of material fact remaining related to Defendant also argued the profit motive did
whether the employees’ failure to notice the spill not transform the dentist’s professional action
prior to plaintiff’s fall was justified. into an entrepreneurial action under CUTPA.
Plaintiff objected, arguing the defendant’s
Ongoing Storm Doctrine Precludes financial arrangements and policies were de-
signed to trick unsophisticated customers into
Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall purchasing unnecessary dental treatment. The
CASE: Burns v. Town of Stafford court agreed with defendant, and found the
COURT: Tolland J.D. at Rockville factual allegations failed to demonstrate an
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6015949 entrepreneurial motive as required to proceed
COURT OPINION BY: Chaplin as a CUTPA violation. The court noted that
DATE: May 18, 2021 • PAGES: 6 the conclusory statement that certain policies
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune