Page 36 - CLT120919
P. 36
36 ¦ DECEMBER 9, 2019 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
a special permit. Plaintiffs applied to defendant for a PERSONAL INJURY
special permit to allow the operation of a consign-
ment/antique business with outdoor display. Although Dispute As to Truth of Statements
the operation of the business was an allowed use, the Insufficient To Support Claim of
“outdoor display of commercial products and/or ma- Defamation
terials” required defendant’s approval. Defendant ap-
proved plaintiffs’ application on two conditions: (1) CASE: Godbout v. Hughes
that plaintiffs’ utility trailers would be parked at the COURT: New London J.D. at New London
rear of the property; and (2) that a storage container at DOC. NO.: CV18-6035054
the property be removed within 18 months. Plaintiffs COURT OPINION BY: Calmar
appealed the two conditions. The court sustained the DATE: November 12, 2019 • PAGES: 10
appeal, finding first that plaintiffs’ utility trailers were
not an “outdoor display of commercial products,” as The court granted defendant’s motion for sum-
argued by defendant. Clearly, the trailers were not an- mary judgment, finding no triable issue of fact as
tiques and were not products sold by plaintiffs. They to plaintiff’s claim of malice and finding that plain-
were business vehicles, and there was no regulation re- tiff’s remaining claims were barred by qualified im-
quiring that they be parked at the rear of the property. munity. On April 24, 2017, defendant allegedly told
With regard to the storage container, the court found plaintiff three times to leave his property and not
it had been in use in its proposed location since 2015, return. On May 2, defendant stated to police that
and that placement had never created any problems plaintiff had trespassed on his property on May 1.
of any sort. Defendant had no discretion to require Plaintiff was charged with criminal trespass. The
removal of the container. charges were dismissed in January 2018. Plaintiff
thereafter sued defendant for slander and intention-
al and negligent infliction of emotional distress, al-
LANDLORD TENANT LAW • CONTRACTUAL leging that defendant’s May 2 statements to the po-
DISPUTES • PERSONAL INJURY lice were false and malicious. Defendant moved for
summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s claims
were barred because (1) defendant’s statements
Plaintiff Bound by Previously Executed were made in good faith, without malice, and in an
Jury Trial Waiver honest belief in their truth, and were thus protected
by qualified privilege and subject to qualified im-
CASE: Sanchez v. Garden Hill Apartments, LLC munity; (2) the statements were substantially true;
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford and (3) plaintiff could not prove the required ele-
DOC. NO.: CV19-6110729 ments of either intentional or negligent infliction of
COURT OPINION BY: Shapiro emotional distress. The court granted defendant’s
DATE: November 18, 2019 • PAGES: 7 motion for summary judgment, finding that there
were no facts to support a finding that defendant’s
The court granted defendant’s motion to strike statements were made with malice. The evidence re-
this action from the jury docket, finding that
plaintiff was bound by his previously executed
jury trial waiver. Plaintiff was a tenant in an lied on by plaintiff showed no more than an issue
apartment complex owned and operated by of fact as to the truth of defendant’s statements,
defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant for his in- which was insufficient to support a cause of action
juries after he slipped and fell on a staircase in for defamation. Further, because defendant’s state-
the complex. Plaintiff further requested that ments were protected by qualified immunity, plain-
the case be tried to a jury. Defendant moved tiff’s claims of intentional and negligent infliction
to strike the action from the jury docket, citing of emotional distress were barred.
plaintiff ’s lease, which expressly stated, under
the caption “JURY TRIAL AND COUNTER- REAL ESTATE
CLAIMS,” that “Landlord and Tenant agree
not to use their right to a Trial by Jury in any ac-
tion or proceeding brought by either against the Counterclaim Not Proper in Common
other, for any matter concerning this Lease or Charge Lien Foreclosure Action
the Apartment.” The court granted defendant’s
motion to strike, finding the terms of the jury CASE: Bell Court Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Sterling-Campbell
trial waiver to be clear and unambiguous. Plain- COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV18-6091550
tiff ’s claims of a disparity in bargaining power COURT OPINION BY: Dubay
were unavailing. DATE: November 15, 2019 • PAGES: 7
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
