Lucarelli v. Freedom of Information Commission, 136 Conn. App. 405

Plaintiff Lam-berto Lucarelli appeals from a trial court judgment of nonsuit in a FOI appeal against the Town of Old Saybrook and related officials.
Remand order allowed limited subpoenas to prove withholding of responsive documents; if plaintiff prevailed, the appeal would be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff failed to subpoena witnesses on remand and later sought a second pretrial conference; the court scheduled a conference but later rendered a nonsuit for nonappearance.
Post-nonsuit, plaintiff moved to open; the court denied the motion, and plaintiff then sought reargument, reconsideration, and disqualification motions.
The trial court denied reargument/reconsideration and found disqualification moot; plaintiff appealed challenging these rulings.
The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion, noted lack of record articulation, and affirmed the judgment without determining constitutional claims due to inadequate briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the nonsuit for failure to appear was an abuse of discretion	Lucarelli contends the court abused its discretion by nonsuiting him.	Old Saybrook argues proper conduct of pretrial schedule justifies the nonsuit.	No abuse; record insufficient to show error.
Whether the denial of the motion to open was an abuse of discretion	Lucarelli asserts the reasons for opening should be considered on the merits.	Defendant contends lack of diligence and prejudice justify denial.	No abuse; decision affirmed.
Whether the denials of reargument/reconsideration were errors	Lucarelli argues the court abused by denying reconsideration and reargument.	Defendant maintains discretionary denials were proper.	No abuse; rulings within discretion.
Whether the mootness ruling on disqualification was properly reviewed	Lucarelli challenges mootness of disqualification claim.	Defendant asserts mootness ends reconsideration of that claim.	Mootness reviewed plenary; affirmed as no reversible error.
Whether the record adequately supports appellate review of the challenged rulings	Lucarelli claims inadequate record prevents review.	Defendant argues record supports challenged rulings; weaknesses acknowledged.	Record deficiency precludes extensive scrutiny; affirmance based on presented record.

In re Christopher C., 134 Conn. App. 464 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard applies to related rulings)
Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 135 Conn. App. 167 (2012) (review of motions to reconsider, reargue or to open judgment)
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council, 286 Conn. 57 (2008) (mootness affects review breadth)
State v. Tocco, 120 Conn. App. 768 (2010) (error not presumed; adequate record required)
Keating v. Ferrandino, 125 Conn. App. 601 (2010) (self-represented litigants must follow procedural rules)
Dichello v. Holgrath Corp., 49 Conn. App. 339 (1998) (adequacy of briefings required for review)
Thompson v. Rhodes, 125 Conn. App. 649 (2010) (self-represented litigants receive cautious judicial treatment)