Page 30 - CLT112320

30 ¦ NOVEMBER 23, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

that the answers to the interrogatories were in- Following a hearing, the court dismissed her mo-
consistent. The trial court denied the motion. tion to open for lack of jurisdiction. The court
The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme ruled that she should have framed her request
Court reversed, holding that the jury’s inter- as a plenary action, because, under New York
rogatory answers were not fatally inconsistent, law, a challenge to a separation agreement not
in light of established public nuisance jurispru- merged into the judgment is a substantive issue,
dence. The appellate court erred in focusing ex- not procedural. The Appellate Court reversed
clusively on the lack of a fence on the wall. The and remanded, holding that the trial court did
proper inquiry was not whether the inherently not lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the
dangerous condition alone was reasonable, but motion. The trial court properly determined
whether the defendant’s use of the land consti- that New York law governed the plaintiff ’s
tuted a reasonable use of the property in the rights with respect to the stipulation, but it erred
particular locality under the circumstances of in dismissing the motion to open. Although the
the case. Based on the evidence, the jury rea- plaintiff moved to open the judgment, it was the
sonably could have concluded that, although stipulation that was at issue, not the judgment.
the retaining wall was inherently dangerous, Had she commenced a plenary contract action
the defendant’s use of the land was reasonable to vacate the stipulation, the trial court would
in light of the surrounding circumstances. have had jurisdiction to adjudicate the action by

applying the substantive law of New York. The
APPELLATE COURT judgment dismissing the motion to open had to
be reversed. The court remanded with a direc-
tion to render judgment denying, rather than
dismissing, the motion.
FAMILY LAW

New York Law Requires Plenary SUPERIOR COURT
Action to Challenge Validity of Marital
Dissolution Stipulation ADMINISTRATIVE LAW • PRIVACY

CASE: Gershon v. Back Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42778
COURT OPINION BY: Lavine Administrative Appeal

DATE: November 10, 2020 • PAGES: 21 CASE: Festa v. Dep’t of Public Health
The Appellate Court reversed a judgment and COURT: New Britain J.D.
remanded, holding that a challenge to the va- DOC. NO.: CV-20-60597568
lidity of a stipulation that had been included, COURT OPINION BY: Klau
but not merged, into a New York dissolution DATE: October 28, 2020 • PAGES: 17
judgment was an issue of New York substantive Defendant Department of Public Health re-
law that had to be brought as a plenary action. leased data disclosing immunization rates
Plaintiff Elana Gershon and defendant Ronald in schools with more than 30 students, on a
Black were married and divorced in New York. school-by-school basis, including the percent-
Prior to their marriage, they entered into a pre- age of students claiming religious and medical
nuptial agreement that was incorporated but not exemptions. Plaintiffs are parents of a child who
merged, as a stipulation, into the dissolution attends one such school, which was ranked in
judgment. By its terms, the judgment was sub- the top ten in the state of unvaccinated students.
ject to New York law. Later, both parties moved Plaintiffs argued that the department was not at
to Connecticut. The plaintiff registered the dis- liberty to disclose immunization rates, even if
solution judgment in Connecticut, then moved they did not identify particular students, under
to open. She claimed the judgment was obtained §19a-25. The department moved to dismiss, and
through the defendant’s fraudulent conduct in argued plaintiffs did not have standing to chal-
that he had knowingly misrepresented his assets lenge the release of the data as an administrative
when the stipulation was being negotiated. She appeal. The court found the plaintiff ’s interest
sought to have the dissolution judgment opened, in the confidentiality of their child’s school’s
the stipulation vacated, and a new trial ordered. immunization data was in the zone of interest

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune