227 Conn.App. 553
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Keren Prescott, a Black woman with multiple sclerosis, attended a political protest supporting Black Lives Matter at the Connecticut State Capitol in January 2021.
- Yuliya Gilshteyn, a white woman, approached Prescott during the protest, disagreed with her views, and after an exchange, spat directly in Prescott's face.
- Prescott claimed severe emotional distress, aggravated by her health condition and trauma from past sexual assault, and incurred counseling expenses.
- Prescott filed a verified complaint and application for prejudgment remedy against Gilshteyn, alleging assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intimidation based on bigotry or bias.
- The trial court granted a prejudgment remedy (PJR) of $295,239.60, including trebled emotional distress damages, economic damages, and attorney's fees; Gilshteyn appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was PJR for $75,000 in emotional distress appropriate? | Severe emotional distress, humiliation, and increased health risk warranted damages. | Only self-serving subjective testimony, insufficient for substantial damages. | Plaintiff's testimony credible and sufficient; court did not err. |
| Was admission of expert testimony on racist intent proper? | Expert provided relevant context on race, bias, and tropes not within average lay knowledge. | Expert lacked direct knowledge of defendant's intent; testimony irrelevant and prejudicial. | Expert testimony met admissibility standards; not abuse of discretion. |
| Was there probable cause that defendant's acts were racially motivated for treble damages under bias statute? | Conduct, context, and expert testimony showed likely racial motivation. | No evidence of racial animus beyond conjectural expert opinion. | Sufficient basis for probable cause; court's finding reasonable. |
| Did granting PJR infringe freedom of speech/First Amendment rights (plain error)? | Case concerned spitting, not speech; words used only to show intent/motive. | Defendant penalized for politically charged speech without jury trial; violates First Amendment. | No clear error; conduct—not speech—at issue, and speech used permissibly as evidence of motive/intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. McKnight, 313 Conn. 393 (Conn. 2014) (standard for admissibility of nonscientific expert testimony)
- TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132 (Conn. 2008) (probable cause standard for prejudgment remedy)
- Giordano v. Giordano, 39 Conn. App. 183 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995) (emotional distress damages can rely on subjective testimony)
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Cortes v. Valentin, 213 Conn. App. 635 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022) (emotional distress may be proven by plaintiff’s own account)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1993) (use of speech as evidence of motive or intent is permissible)