141 Conn. App. 442
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- This is a fraud suit challenging the award of a municipal trash and recycling contract to Sterling; Crandall alleges favoritism, fraud and corruption in bidding.
- Crandall’s firm previously held the town’s contract 1990–2007; Frank Crandall was a political opponent of Allyn, the town mayor.
- The town historically awarded two-year contracts with optional four-year extensions; Sterling won the 2007–2011 contract.
- In 2011, the town awarded the four-year contract to Sterling despite Crandall’s lower bid; Crandall sued to void the award and halt Sterling’s performance.
- During trial, the court limited inquiry to the 2011 contract and the bidding process, and excluded evidence about the 2007 contract.
- The trial court granted a judgment of dismissal under Practice Book § 15-8, finding no evidence of fraud, corruption, or favoritism; Crandall appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of 2007 contract evidence | Crandall: 2007 evidence is relevant to pattern of favoritism. | Sterling/ town: 2007 contract matters are not material to 2011 bid. | Abuse: court should admit 2007 evidence for pattern of favoritism. |
| Standing to challenge bid when unsuccessful bidder | Plaintiff contends standing exists to challenge bid due to integrity of process. | Unsuccessful bidders have no private right to contract; public interest requires flaw in bidding to sue. | Unsuccessful bidder may challenge if fraud/corruption undermines bidding integrity. |
| Prima facie showing of fraud, corruption, or favoritism | Evidence shows a pattern of favoritism affecting the 2011 bidding process. | No direct or circumstantial evidence linking 2007 conduct to 2011 award. | Evidence could support a prima facie showing; dismiss ruling reversed. |
| Impact of evidentiary rulings on dismissal | Erroneous exclusions denied full case presentation. | Rulings were proper to limit irrelevant prior conduct. | Harmful error; new trial required due to evidentiary exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc., 86 Conn. App. 842 (2005) (burden to show prima facie evidence to avoid dismissal)
- State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106 (2004) (evidence relevance standards in criminal context; general evidentiary principles)
- Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Education, 303 Conn. 402 (2012) (standing of unsuccessful bidders to challenge public contracts; public interest exception)