197 Conn.App. 281
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Pedro (Rivera) sustained injuries and had existing child support arrearages; the Department of Social Services (DSS) sent a §52-362d lien notice to Rivera’s attorney directing withholding of settlement proceeds. The notice listed the correct street address but an incorrect zip code and was not returned.
- Rivera’s personal injury case settled for $82,500; the attorney disbursed fees, costs, creditor repayments and paid Rivera the remainder without paying DSS; DSS later collected $3,000 in a contempt proceeding, leaving $9,500.70 unpaid.
- DSS sued the attorney under §52-362d to recover the $9,500.70. The plaintiff’s trial management report (filed three months before trial) listed Michael Chiaro (USPS supervisor) as a fact witness who would testify that mail with a wrong zip within Hartford would still be delivered.
- Days before trial defendant moved to preclude Chiaro as expert (no expert disclosure had been filed). The court ruled Chiaro was an expert but allowed a late expert disclosure because the trial management report had already disclosed the substance and there was no prejudice; defendant was permitted to file a late rebuttal expert (Joan Coleman).
- At trial both Chiaro and Coleman testified; the jury awarded DSS $9,500.70. On appeal the attorney challenged (1) late expert disclosure; (2) questioning about a prior withdrawn conversion action; and (3) admission of the children’s mothers’ testimony about arrearages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Late expert disclosure (Chiaro) | Trial management report disclosed substance in Dec.; no surprise or prejudice; late filing harmless | Disclosure violated Practice Book §13-4; prejudiced defendant (no time to depose or secure rebuttal) | Court did not abuse discretion: defendant had substantive notice; no prejudice; late disclosure allowed and rebuttal expert permitted |
| Questioning on prior withdrawn conversion action | N/A (plaintiff used questioning to develop context) | Evidence of another conversion action was unfairly prejudicial, inadmissible character evidence | Claim unpreserved: defendant failed to renew objection or request limiting instruction, so appellate review declined |
| Testimony of mothers about arrearages | Mothers’ testimony was necessary proof that Rivera owed child support (defendant left allegation to proof) | Testimony irrelevant to delivery issue and cumulative/prejudicial | Admission upheld: testimony was relevant to an essential element (existence/amount of arrearages); no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97 (2017) (standards for qualification and admissibility of expert testimony)
- Baxter v. Cardiology Associates of New Haven, P.C., 46 Conn. App. 377 (1997) (trial court discretion to allow late expert disclosure)
- State v. Gonzalez, 272 Conn. 515 (2005) (preservation requirement for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- United Techs. Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11 (2002) (objection must state grounds to preserve that ground on appeal)
- PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279 (2004) (deference to trial court on admissibility and abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Sinclair, 197 Conn. 574 (1985) (relevance objection does not preserve claim that evidence is prior misconduct)