Lappostato v. Terk
143 Conn. App. 384
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Rosario Lappostato sued Glenn Terk for negligent misrepresentation relating to investments with Quintiliani in 2007–2008; defendant gave letters and assurances about funds and legitimacy of transactions.
- Plaintiff relied on defendant’s letters and representations in investing $15,000–$25,000 and subsequent sums.
- Defendant authored letters stating large sums would be wired from Quintiliani’s accounts and that funds would be released upon paying taxes, without verifying legitimacy.
- Plaintiff wired $22,500 and $20,815 in 2008, and later wired additional sums; no returns were received and Quintiliani died in 2008.
- Court admitted various exhibits and held a trial in May 2012; verdict for plaintiff awarded $53,315.2, later challenged by defendant on postverdict motions.
- Court raised Nigeria-related evidentiary issues and later redacted references; jury ultimately awarded damages and defendant appealed on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial due to Nigeria reference in evidence | Lappostato argues material prejudice from Nigeria references despite redaction. | Terk contends Nigeria references violated limine and biased the jury. | Court did not abuse discretion; no fair-trial deprivation; mistrial denied. |
| Admission of exhibits over objection | Exhibits 1–6 and others show defendant’s knowledge and plaintiff’s reliance. | Exhibits lacked foundation/relevance. | No abuse; exhibits relevant and probative to negligence reliance. |
| Motion for remittitur denial | Damages supported by evidence of substantial reliance and losses. | Damages included impermissible or undisclosed items. | Remittitur denial upheld; damages not plainly excessive. |
| Motion to set aside verdict/JNOV | Evidence supported finding of misrepresentation and causation. | Insufficient evidence or misstatement to sustain verdict. | Court did not abuse discretion; verdict supported by record. |
| Statute of limitations defense | |||
| Statutory tolling via continuing course of conduct at issue. | No discrete ruling on limitations; issue improperly raised on appeal. | Merits not reviewed; issue inadequately briefed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reilly, 141 Conn. App. 562 (2013) (mistrial standard; prejudice requires fair-trial impact)
- Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 129 Conn. App. 481 (2011) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings; prejudice standard)
- Savings Bank of Manchester v. Ralion Financial Services, Inc., 91 Conn. App. 386 (2005) (negligent misrepresentation proof and reliance elements)
- Hall v. Bergman, 296 Conn. 169 (2010) (abuse of discretion in verdict-related motions; credibility weighs heavily)
- Medcalf v. Washington Heights Condominium Assn., Inc., 57 Conn. App. 12 (2000) (standard for motions to set aside verdict/JNOV; abuse of discretion)