Braca v. Utzler
134 Conn. App. 460
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Braca appeals from a summary judgment favoring Utzler in a suit alleging intentional torts and statutory violations.
- Court granted summary judgment on multiple counts, finding statutes of limitations and res judicata bar claims, and vexatious litigation issues foreclosed.
- Plaintiff argued the court erred by denying a third continuance, which would have allowed opposing the summary judgment.
- Plaintiff filed a June 17, 2011 continuance; the court denied it nunc pro tunc July 1, 2011.
- The memorandum of decision adopted by the appellate court provided the factual and legal basis for the grant of summary judgment.
- Prior litigation Utzler v. Braca (April 25, 2008) partially upheld defendant’s position and was cited in the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of the third continuance was reversible error | Braca argues denial prevented opposition to summary judgment | Utzler contends continuance denial was proper | No reversible error |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on remaining five counts | Braca claims genuine issues of material fact exist | Utzler argues statutes of limitations and res judicata foreclose claims | Yes; summary judgment affirmed on remaining counts |
| Whether the court properly adopted the memorandum of decision | Braca asserts need for trial record review | Utzler contends reliance on trial court memo | Adopted; no error in adopting trial court decision |
| Whether prior litigation foreclosed vexatious-litigant claim | Braca contends prior case should not bar current claims | Utzler relies on prior adjudication to support bar | Affirmed |
| Whether the court correctly applied Practice Book § 17-45 requirements | Braca asserts he lacked opportunity to present evidence | Utzler argues proper use of affidavits and documents | Correctly applied; live testimony not required for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Braca v. Utzler, 41 A.3d 1210 (Conn. Sup. 2011) (adopted trial court memorandum; affirmed summary judgment)
- Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wysocki, 702 A.2d 638 (Conn. 1997) (summary judgment standards and adopting memorandum language)
- Orenstein v. Old Buckingham Corp., 534 A.2d 1172 (Conn. 1987) (summary judgment standard and burden on opposition)
- Farrell v. Farrell, 438 A.2d 415 (Conn. 1980) (limits on opposition evidence in summary judgment)