Cuozzo v. Orange, 109 A.3d 903

Background

Cuozzo sued the Town of Orange after his car struck a large pothole on a driveway connecting a shopping plaza to Meloy Road, alleging negligence under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n.
Town moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the claim sounds in the municipal highway defect statute, § 13a-149, and that Cuozzo failed to give the 90-day notice required by that statute; town submitted an affidavit from its clerk asserting no timely notice was received.
Cuozzo opposed the motion, submitting an affidavit that the accident occurred on a private driveway leading exclusively to the Wal‑Mart plaza and arguing § 13a-149 therefore did not apply.
The trial court granted the town’s motion, concluding (based on the pleadings and affidavits) the driveway had a public character invoking § 13a-149 and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to no timely notice.
The Appellate Court reversed, holding the record lacked sufficient undisputed facts to treat the driveway as a public highway under § 13a-149 and that the jurisdictional fact remained in dispute; it remanded for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court: because a critical factual dispute (whether the driveway is a public highway and whether the defect was within the highway’s scope) remained, the jurisdictional question could not be resolved on the motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing or further development.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to give § 13a-149 notice	Cuozzo: accident occurred on a private driveway; § 13a-149 (90‑day notice) does not apply; claim proceeds under § 52‑557n	Town: driveway is functionally a public highway connected to Meloy Road; § 13a-149 applies and plaintiff failed to provide timely notice, so court lacks jurisdiction	Held: Reversed. A disputed, critical factual question (public vs private character of the driveway and proximity of defect to highway) precluded dismissal on pleadings/affidavits; an evidentiary hearing or further proceedings required
Whether the court may resolve jurisdiction on motion to dismiss when affidavits conflict	Cuozzo: his affidavit creates a material dispute about the driveway’s character	Town: its clerk’s affidavit supports lack of notice and public character; court may consider affidavits supporting the motion	Held: Where jurisdictional facts are disputed and outcome depends on those facts, court cannot decide on motion to dismiss without resolving factual disputes via hearing or further proceedings
Whether proximity or public use assumptions can convert a municipally owned private driveway into a highway under § 13a-149	Cuozzo: no sufficient record to presume public character despite municipal ownership	Town: proximity to public road and likely public use justify treating it as a highway	Held: Whether a way is a highway is a fact‑intensive inquiry; court cannot presume public character absent sufficient showing
Proper procedure for resolving jurisdictional fact disputes on pretrial motion	Cuozzo: jurisdictional dispute requires evidentiary hearing or delay until discovery/trial	Town: motion to dismiss appropriate and could be granted based on submissions	Held: If jurisdiction depends on disputed facts, trial court must hold a hearing or postpone resolution until after discovery/trial; summary dismissal inappropriate

Key Cases Cited

Dorry v. Garden, 313 Conn. 516 (reciting standards for motions to dismiss and when evidentiary hearings are required)
Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (distinguishing three situations for jurisdictional dismissal: complaint alone; complaint plus undisputed facts; disputed facts requiring resolution)
Gordon v. H.N.S. Management Co., 272 Conn. 81 (due process requires an evidentiary hearing when jurisdictional facts are disputed)
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Harrison, 264 Conn. 829 (same principle on need for hearing when jurisdictional facts contested)
Lampasona v. Jacobs, 209 Conn. 724 (jurisdiction intertwined with merits may require trial-like factfinding)
New Haven v. United Illuminating Co., 168 Conn. 478 (definition and public‑use character of a highway)
Kozlowski v. Commissioner of Transportation, 274 Conn. 497 (distinguishing public versus private thoroughfares)
Serrano v. Burns, 248 Conn. 419 (defect proximity to highway is a question of fact)
Steele v. Stonington, 225 Conn. 217 (elements to establish liability under § 13a-149)