Litvack v. Artusio
49 A.3d 762
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Rita Litvack sued Artusio and Touro College for malpractice and related claims arising from alleged failure to timely substitute her as named plaintiff in Kaplan’s prior action.
- Litvack sued in her individual capacity, not as executrix of Kaplan’s estate, though pleadings occasionally described her as Kaplan’s daughter and executrix.
- Kaplan action involved a US District Court claim against Kaplan’s daughter Myma Lehrer; Kaplan’s death led to dismissal of that action, and later appellate denial of Litvack’s motion to open and substitute.
- The trial court treated the complaint as filed in Litvack’s individual capacity and dismissed for lack of standing.
- Litvack appealed, challenging both the standing ruling and the denial of leave to amend; the appellate court affirmed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Litvack had standing as executrix of Kaplan estate | Litvack contends she is executrix and thus has standing | Defendants argue summons misdescribed capacity; no executrix standing | Litvack lacked standing as executrix; summons did not name executrix and allegations show individual injuries |
| Whether Litvack had standing as individual third-party/foreseeable beneficiary | Litvack asserts she was third party or foreseeable beneficiary of Kaplan’s contract | No intent to confer direct obligation or benefit to Litvack | No standing as third party beneficiary or foreseeable beneficiary; contract did not show direct obligation to Litvack |
| Whether the denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Litvack sought amendment to align capacity with executrix status under § 52-123 | Court properly concluded misdescription and timing precluded amendment | Not an abuse of discretion; amendment denied on proper grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellman v. West Hartford, 96 Conn. App. 387, 891 A.2d 82 (2006) (treats pretrial dismissal as motion to dismiss when characterizing capacity)
- State v. McElveen, 261 Conn. 198, 802 A.2d 74 (2002) (standing burden on party seeking jurisdiction)
- Hultman v. Blumenthal, 67 Conn. App. 613, 787 A.2d 666 (2002) (identity determined by summons description)
- Stowe v. Smith, 184 Conn. 194, 441 A.2d 81 (1981) (intent of beneficiary; third party beneficiary principles)
- Grigerik v. Sharpe, 247 Conn. 293, 721 A.2d 526 (1998) (mere intent to confer benefit irrelevant to third party beneficiary status)
- Golek v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, Inc., 133 Conn. App. 182, 34 A.2d 452 (2012) (no liability to non-clients absent privity/intent to benefit)
- Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245, 765 A.2d 505 (2001) (foreseeable beneficiary limits)
- Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 253 Conn. 661, 757 A.2d 1 (2000) (standing and statutory provisions for amendment)
- Andover Ltd. Partnership I v. Board of Tax Review, 232 Conn. 392, 655 A.2d 759 (1995) (52-123 misdescription substitution vs. amendment)
- Shuster v. Buckley, 5 Conn. App. 473, 500 A.2d 240 (1985) (amendment timing and discretion)
- Cadle Co. v. D’Addario, 268 Conn. 441, 844 A.2d 836 (2004) (treatment of standing when challenging capacity)
- Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186, 994 A.2d 106 (2010) (standards for reviewing jurisdictional dismissals)
- Assn. Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn. 145, 2 A.3d 873 (2010) (standing involves subject matter jurisdiction)