Page 28 - CLT072020

28 ¦ JULY 20, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT that it was immaterial that the plaintiff did not
strictly comply with the notice provision because
CONTRACTS that is not the legal standard. The court reversed
the trial court’s judgment.

Court Reversed Lower Court’s APPELLATE COURT

Judgment, Holding That New York Law
Does Not Require A Party To Strictly
Comply With Notice Provisions In A CIVIL PROCEDURE
Commercial Contract
Court Found That Trial Court Did Not
CASE: E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp. Have Jurisdiction Over Petitioner’s
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court Petition
DOC. NO.: SC 20329
COURT OPINION BY: McDonald CASE: Petrucelli v. City of Meriden
DATE: July 02, 2020 • PAGES: 17 COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 39631
Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract, al- COURT OPINION BY: Moll
leging that defendant violated their asset purchase DATE: July 07, 2020 • PAGES: 11
agreement by operating nine areas of a chemical
plant in violation of fire safety laws and regula- Petitioner appealed from the judgment of the trial
tions. The trial court found for defendant, hold- court that found in favor of the respondent after a
ing that the plaintiff did not strictly comply with hearing held on the petitioner’s petition to reopen
the notice provisions of the APA. The plaintiff a city hearing officer’s decision upholding the issu-
appealed and the court reversed. The issue before ance of a written notice to the petitioner for vio-
lating a city ordinance. On appeal, the petitioner
the court was whether New York law requires a claimed that the trial court improperly concluded
party to strictly comply with a notice provision in his due process rights had not been violated, errone-
a commercial contract in order to recover for the ously denied his post hearing motion to reopen the
other party’s breach of contract. It looked to New evidence, and also committed several evidentiary er-
York case law when deciding that strict compli- rors. The court did not address the merits of the pe-
ance with a notice provision in a private commer- titioner’s appeal. Instead, it held that the trial court
cial contract is not required. The court found that did not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain
the defendant in this case was aware that plaintiff the petition and therefore should have dismissed it.
was seeking indemnification for the fire protection The court stated that the statute pursuant to which
system; there was evidence that there were regu- the city enacted the city ordinance that the petition-
lar discussions and correspondence regarding the er was cited with did not have any language that al-
plant’s deficiencies. Therefore, the court found lowed for an individual to appeal a hearing officer’s

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune