Page 27 - CLT090720

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS SEPTEMBER 7, 2020 ¦ 27

Plaintiff attended a bridal shower at a restaurant that this was a technical imperfection but did not
owned and operated by defendant. Plaintiff fell render the contract in violation of the HIA. How-
down the stairs after her shoe became caught in ever, the court found the contract was in material
loosely affixed carpeting, and sustained injuries, noncompliance with the HIA because a right of
and commenced the present action against de- rescission has a different meaning than cancella-
fendant. Defendant answered denying any negli- tion. The court therefore found the contract unen-
gence and that any of their actions were the prox- forceable against the defendants, and affirmed the
imate cause of the injuries, and that plaintiff’s decision of the trial court.
injuries were caused by her own negligence. The
trial court rendered summary judgment in favor
of the defendant, finding that plaintiff’s “amor- SUPERIOR COURT
phous descriptions” of the alleged defect failed to
present sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury
could conclude the defect was a proximate cause CIVIL PROCEDURE
of her injuries. Plaintiff appealed, arguing the
trial court erred in finding no issue of material Court Denied Defendant’s Motion to
fact, and the court overturned the trial court’s Dismiss, Finding His Uncorroborated
finding. The court noted the plaintiff’s testimony
that the carpet on the stairs was “wavy” or “un- Affidavit Insufficient To Disprove
usually thick,” and that the plaintiff provided Jurisdiction
testimony from two other guests who echoed
the condition on the stairs. The court found this CASE: Nieves-Melendez v. Cofrancesco
created “room for disagreement” sufficient to COURT: New Haven J.D.
overcome a motion for summary judgment, and DOC. NO.: CV-19-6097750
reversed the trial court’s decision. COURT OPINION BY: Abrams
DATE: August 11, 2020 • PAGES: 8
Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence and prop-
REAL ESTATE • CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES erty damage following a car accident. Defen-

Homeowners Improvement Contract dant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
Unenforceable Where Noncompliant personal jurisdiction due to plaintiff’s failure to
properly serve defendant. The court denied his
motion. Defendant claimed that he had not lived
with Homeowners Improvement Act at the address where process was delivered for five

CASE: Demattio v. Plunkett years. Plaintiff disputed that, providing evidence
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 41283 that defendant was at the address as recently as
COURT OPINION BY: Moll 2019. The court found that defendant did not
DATE: August 25, 2020 • PAGES: 23 submit sufficient evidence to disprove jurisdic-
tion, stating that his own affidavit with the un-
In 2015 plaintiff contracted with defendant home- corroborated claim that he had not lived there for
owners to remodel their kitchen. After some delay, five years was not enough.
plaintiff stopped work, alleging he was owed
a fourth installment on the contract price, and
walked off the job. Defendants maintained they CONSUMER PROTECTION

had overpaid the plaintiff based on a lack of prog- Court Partially Granted Defendants’
ress. Plaintiff commenced the present 7-count ac-
tion, which included breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, and defendants filed a counterclaim Motion to Strike, Finding That Plaintiff
and special defenses alleging the contract violated Could Not Prove NIED Resulting
the Home Improvement Act. The trial court found From CVS’ Disclosure of Confidential
the contract failed to comply with the HIA because Information
it did not contain a notice of cancellation clause,
rendering it unenforceable against the defendants, CASE: Haughton v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
and found in favor of the defendants on the breach COURT: New Haven J.D.
of contract claim. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that DOC. NO.: CV-19-6093104
the contract contained a notice of cancellation COURT OPINION BY: Abrams
(although it was referred to as “rescission”), and DATE: August 07, 2020 • PAGES: 18

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune