Page 30 - CLT072020

30 ¦ JULY 20, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

also found sufficient evidence to support his substantially true. Defendant had submitted
conviction of risk of injury to a child: the child an affidavit of the plaintiff ’s former police chief
didn’t have access to parents during the nights where the former chief said that the plaintiff did
when the defendant was beating the victim in not leave in good standing, and that his decision
the basement, and the jury was free to credit a not to give the plaintiff a letter of good standing
psychologist’s testimony that the children could was within his discretion to make.
have been traumatized after seeing the victim’s
injuries. Lastly, the court held that there was suf-
ficient evidence to support an unlawful restraint DAMAGES • DISCOVERY

conviction. It stated the jury could have found Court Affirmed Lower Court’s Order Of
that the defendant restricted the victim’s liberty
to move freely when he grabbed her by the hair Sanctions
and dragged her into the basement. Therefore,
the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions. CASE: Alpha Beta Capital Partners v. Pursuit Inv. Mgmt, LLC
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 41986
DAMAGES COURT OPINION BY: Prescott

Court Affirmed Judgment In Favor Of DATE: July 07, 2020 • PAGES: 23
Defendants In Tortious Interference
And Defamation Case The trial court awarded the plaintiff attorney
fees and litigation costs for the defendants’ dis-
covery abuses. Defendants appealed the trial
court’s order of sanctions, claiming that the
lower court abused its discretion because the
CASE: Gerrish v. Hammick order failed to meet the three requirements that
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court a trial court must deem satisfied before imposing
DOC. NO.: AC 41759 sanctions. The court affirmed the lower court’s
COURT OPINION BY: Prescott judgment. The court found that the trial court’s
DATE: July 07, 2020 • PAGES: 16
Plaintiff was a former police sergeant and took a order was clear and met all the requirements.
position as a public safety officer with employer There was ample evidence in the record that
Quinnipiac University. Prior to plaintiff ’s retire- the trial court relied on when determining that
ment, he had been accused of insubordination defendants violated the court’s discovery order
and neglect of duty. Defendant chief of the po- and the court’s order of sanctions was propor-
lice department ordered defendant Willauer to tionate to the defendants’’ violation. The lower
conduct an internal affairs investigation into the court properly found that defendants’ continu-
accusations, but plaintiff resigned before the in- ous practice of disobeying the court’s discovery
vestigation was complete. Quinnipiac’s investi- orders caused the plaintiff harm, including at-
gator asked Willauer whether the plaintiff would torney fees and litigation costs. Therefore, the
be able to receive a letter of good standing from court affirmed.
his former department and Willauer responded,
“no.” Quinnipiac then fired plaintiff. Plaintiff
sued defendant for defamation and tortious in- FEE DISPUTES

terference in connection with Willauer’s state- Court Reversed In Part Trial Court’s
ment to Quinnipiac. The trial court ultimately
granted defendant’s motion for summary judg- Granting Of Summary Judgment In
ment after first denying the motion, then grant- Vexatious Litigation Case
ing a motion to reargue. Plaintiff appealed.
The court affirmed. The court first found that CASE: Rozbicki v. Sconyers
the lower court was within its right to grant de- COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
fendant’s motion to reargue, as defendant made DOC. NO.: AC 41654
several valid arguments that the lower court had COURT OPINION BY: Moll
overlooked certain evidence or misapprehended DATE: July 07, 2020 • PAGES: 18
facts. The court then held that the lower court In a prior civil action, defendant Laser retained
correctly granted summary judgment in favor the plaintiff to defend him, his building compa-
of the defendants. It reasoned that there was ny, Sconyers and Ackerly Brown, LLP. During
no genuine issue of material fact that Willau- this case, Laser contacted his insurance compa-
er’s statement to Quinnipiac’s investigator was ny about providing a defense and the insurance

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune