196 Conn.App. 675
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Priore applied for a final site plan and special permit in Greenwich to build a house and install a sewer line; a January 12, 2016 public hearing was held on the application.
- At the hearing the defendant, Haig, commented about tree impacts and alleged Priore was "not trustworthy," had a "serious criminal past," and had paid over $40,000,000 in SEC fines; the press published portions of her remarks.
- Priore sued Haig for defamation; Haig pleaded absolute litigation immunity as a special defense and moved to dismiss, attaching the hearing transcript and an affidavit.
- Priore opposed the motion but did not submit counteraffidavits or request an evidentiary hearing until his postjudgment motion to reargue.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding the planning & zoning hearing was quasi‑judicial and Haig’s statements were pertinent and thus absolutely immune; the court denied reargument.
- Priore appealed, arguing the court should have held an evidentiary hearing, the hearing was not quasi‑judicial, and the statements were not pertinent to the proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve jurisdictional facts before deciding motion to dismiss | Priore: material jurisdictional facts were disputed (nature of application, whether trees were clear‑cut, pertinence of comments) and an evidentiary hearing was needed | Haig: record (complaint, transcript, affidavit) contained undisputed facts; Priore failed to proffer counterevidence or timely request a hearing | Court: No hearing required—Priore failed to timely request or produce counterevidence; no genuine dispute of material jurisdictional facts |
| Whether the planning & zoning commission hearing was quasi‑judicial | Priore: commission was performing an administrative function without true discretion, so not quasi‑judicial | Haig: the commission exercised discretion, fact‑finding, could approve/deny/table, and its decision affected property rights—factors supporting quasi‑judicial status | Court: Hearing was quasi‑judicial (Kelley factors and applicable municipal code support discretion, fact‑finding, binding decisions, effect on property rights) |
| Whether Haig’s statements were pertinent to the proceeding and thus absolutely immune | Priore: allegations about criminal past and SEC fines were unrelated to whether the site plan complied with regulations and therefore not pertinent | Haig: statements related to Priore’s credibility and the reliability of representations on which the commission would rely | Court: Statements concerned Priore’s credibility and were sufficiently related under the liberal "pertinence" test; absolute litigation immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (Conn. 2009) (standards for resolving jurisdictional facts on motion to dismiss and when an evidentiary hearing is required)
- Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. 549 (Conn. 1992) (factors and policy for determining quasi‑judicial proceedings and absolute immunity)
- Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459 (Conn. 2007) (generous test for relevancy/pertinence of statements in quasi‑judicial proceedings)
- Craig v. Stafford Constr., Inc., 271 Conn. 78 (Conn. 2004) (scope of absolute immunity for statements in quasi‑judicial proceedings)
- Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2007) (public policy rationale for encouraging participation through immunity)
- Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 244 Conn. 619 (Conn. 1998) (special permit process is discretionary)
- Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp., 272 Conn. 776 (Conn. 2005) (absolute immunity bars defamation damages even if statements are false and malicious)
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (Conn. 2008) (denial of evidentiary hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Dlugokecki v. Vieira, 98 Conn. App. 252 (Conn. App. 2006) (statements impeaching credibility at public hearings are pertinent)
- Alexandru v. Dowd, 79 Conn. App. 434 (Conn. App. 2003) (credibility‑related statements can be pertinent to quasi‑judicial proceedings)
- Mercer v. Blanchette, 133 Conn. App. 84 (Conn. App. 2012) (noting that statements bearing on credibility relate to subject matter and may be immune)
- Hayes Family Ltd. P'ship v. Glastonbury, 132 Conn. App. 218 (Conn. App. 2011) (trial court must hold a hearing where a critical jurisdictional fact is genuinely disputed)