187 Conn. App. 227
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Hart-D’Amato retained Hoffkins in 2012 for marital dissolution work, paid only an initial retainer, and Hoffkins moved to withdraw in 2013; Hoffkins sued in 2013 for unpaid fees (~$60,000).
- Defendant filed counterclaims (including professional negligence); the trial court granted partial summary judgment against one counterclaim and the matter proceeded to an 11-day jury trial.
- At trial Hart-D’Amato sought to admit two hearing transcripts to impeach Hoffkins: an April 3, 2014 prejudgment remedy hearing (which contained sworn testimony) and an August 25, 2014 motion-to-strike hearing transcript (which primarily contained legal argument, not sworn testimony).
- The trial court initially admitted the August 25 transcript as a full exhibit, then sua sponte limited it to identification and later admitted a redacted version as an admission by a party opponent, excluding passages that were legal argument.
- Hart-D’Amato moved to disqualify the trial judge, alleging bias (hiding facts, excessive jury sequestration during evidentiary colloquies, and coaching the plaintiff); the court denied the motion. Jury returned verdict for Hoffkins; Hart-D’Amato appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hoffkins) | Defendant's Argument (Hart-D’Amato) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial judge should have been disqualified for bias | Judge acted properly; denial reasonable | Judge was biased — excluded evidence, sequestered jury to hide facts, and coached plaintiff | Denial affirmed: defendant failed to show reasonable appearance of impropriety; adverse rulings do not prove bias; record shows court assisted defendant |
| Whether the unredacted Aug. 25, 2014 transcript should have been admitted as a full exhibit | Exclusion of argument portions was proper; court may restrict exhibit scope | Redaction deprived jury of relevant facts and violated due process | Affirmed: transcript contained legal argument, not sworn testimony; court properly redacted and limited exhibit under evidence rules; claim not a due process issue but evidentiary and reviewed for abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. West Hartford, 168 Conn. App. 354 (disqualification standard: objective test whether a reasonable person would question judge’s impartiality)
- D’Amato v. Hart-D’Amato, 169 Conn. App. 669 (motion-to-disqualify review; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Weaver v. McKnight, 313 Conn. 393 (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion when based on correct legal principles)
- Gagliano v. Advanced Specialty Care, P.C., 329 Conn. 745 (rule that an exhibit received as a full exhibit is in the case for all purposes)