311 Conn. 649
Conn.2014Background
- Gagne sought appellate attorney’s fees after multiple appeals; Judge Anthony V. DeMayo awarded fees, the Appellate Court partially reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on reasonableness.
- On remand, DeMayo presided over the hearing; defendant Vaccaro filed a late motion to disqualify (arguing DeMayo previously tried the matter and was reversed) and objections to discovery; DeMayo denied the disqualification and later awarded fees and found Vaccaro in contempt for nonpayment.
- Vaccaro appealed, arguing DeMayo should have recused under Practice Book §1-22 and Gen. Stat. §51-183c (statute precluding a judge who tried a case that was reversed from trying it again); the Appellate Court agreed §51-183c required recusal, reversed the fees and contempt rulings, and ordered a new hearing before a different judge.
- The Supreme Court granted certification limited to whether §51-183c required DeMayo’s recusal but, sua sponte, asked whether Vaccaro’s failure to appeal DeMayo’s ruling that the disqualification motion violated Practice Book §1-23 rendered the recusal issue moot.
- The Supreme Court held the recusal issue moot because Vaccaro never challenged the trial court’s finding that he failed to comply with Practice Book §1-23 (timeliness/affidavit requirement), so the Court could not afford him practical relief; it reversed the Appellate Court on the disqualification issue and remanded for consideration of Vaccaro’s other claims (discovery, interest), but declined to review the contempt ruling because Vaccaro did not file a cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gagne) | Defendant's Argument (Vaccaro) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §51-183c required DeMayo to recuse on remand | DeMayo could preside; Appellate Court’s partial reversal did not trigger mandatory statutory recusal | §51-183c bars a judge who tried a case that was reversed from trying it again; DeMayo previously tried and was reversed | Moot — Supreme Court did not decide merits because defendant failed to challenge trial court’s §1-23 ruling, so no practical relief possible |
| Whether defendant waived disqualification under Practice Book §1-23 | Timeliness objection invalid; defendant complied as soon as he learned DeMayo would preside | Defendant filed motion less than ten days before hearing and didn’t show good cause | Trial court found defendant failed to comply with §1-23; defendant did not appeal that ruling, rendering recusal challenge moot |
| Justiciability / Mootness of recusal claim | Relief possible if recusal required | Relief unavailable because waiver ruling stands | Court exercised plenary review and found the recusal issue moot for lack of practical relief |
| Reviewability of contempt ruling | N/A (Gagne was appellee on contempt) | Defendant sought review as alternative ground but did not file cross-appeal | Court declined to review contempt because defendant failed to file a cross-appeal as required by Practice Book §61-8 |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyatt Energy, Inc. v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC, 308 Conn. 719 (court may dismiss appeal as moot where appellant cannot obtain practical relief)
- Board of Police Commissioners v. White, 171 Conn. 553 (cross-appeal requirement and related doctrines)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 133 Conn. App. 431 (Conn. App.) (Appellate Court decision reversing fee award and ordering recusal on remand)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 304 Conn. 907 (certification order by Connecticut Supreme Court)