Robert J. Barnabei Contracting, LLC v. Greater Hartford Jewish Community Center, Inc.
2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 144
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Barnabei Contracting, LLC sued Aspinet Construction for breach of a subcontract relating to a West Hartford renovation.
- The 2004 agreement set the price at $37,960 with change orders increasing to $41,275; §8(a) required written change orders for price adjustments.
- Torello Engineers was hired by Aspinet to ensure code compliance, with Torello’s services backcharged to Barnabei for $16,435.50 under §7(d).
- Aspinet submitted a $51,200 invoice, but the community center denied payment due to lack of documentation and absence of a written change order approval.
- Aspinet backcharged $16,435.50 to the contract price, reducing Barnabei’s total compensation to $24,839.50; Barnabei had already been paid $24,547.50.
- An attorney fact finder issued a report finding no liability for the $51,200 invoice and that the backcharge was proper, recommending $292 to Barnabei; the court adopted the report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fact finder’s report was properly accepted | Barnabei contends report lacked factual justification | Aspinet argues report is adequately supported by the contract and evidence | Report properly accepted; damages set at $292 |
| Whether the $51,200 invoice was payable without a written change order approval | Barnabei asserts the invoice amount reflects an adjustment; should be paid | Aspinet argues no §8(a) approval by the community center, so no liability | No liability for $51,200 due to lack of community center approval |
| Whether the $16,435.50 Torello backcharge was properly applied under §7(d) | Barnabei contends backcharge was improper or not properly supported by contract | Aspinet contends Torello’s costs were required by code compliance §7(d) | Backcharge properly deducted; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether §7(f) claim preservation allows appellate review | Barnabei raised §7(f) on appeal; claims preservation and plain error defenses apply | Aspinet argues §7(f) claim was unpreserved and inadequately briefed | Claim unpreserved and inadequately briefed; not reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Lynch, 122 Conn.App. 686 (2010) (clear evidentiary standard for reviewing attorney trial fact finders)
- State v. Britton, 283 Conn. 598 (2007) (plain error doctrine and preservation requirements)
- Crest Pontiac Cadillac, Inc. v. Hadley, 239 Conn. 437 (1996) (claims not argued below are not reviewed on appeal)
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 266 Conn. 108 (2003) (briefing and preservation requirements; threshold issues)
- State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 (1973) (exceptional circumstances for review of new issues; Golding framework)