Ulanoff v. Becker Salon, LLC, 208 Conn.App. 1

Andrea Ulanoff allegedly walked into closed glass entrance doors of Becker Salon on Feb. 11, 2015, injuring her head; she said the doors had no signage or handles and she did not realize they were closed.
The salon had posted a photograph of its entrance on its website showing clear glass doors without lettering or handles; plaintiff sought to admit that photograph at trial.
Defendants moved in limine to exclude the website photograph, claiming it was taken after the accident and had been photoshopped; the trial court granted the motion and excluded the photo.
Plaintiff called Vanessa Savio, who had helped decorate the salon ~3 weeks before the accident; the court barred questions about whether the doors had handles or signage at that earlier time.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants; on appeal the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion in excluding both the photograph and Savio’s testimony and that the errors were likely harmful, warranting a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of website photograph	Photo is relevant; plaintiff can authenticate it by personal knowledge as a fair and accurate representation of the doors on the accident date	Photo inadmissible because taken later, altered (photoshopped), and not properly authenticated	Exclusion was improper: prima facie authentication by plaintiff was sufficient; alterations go to weight, not admissibility
Exclusion of Savio’s testimony about door handles	Savio’s observations while decorating (weeks before opening) were relevant to whether handles were ever present and to impeach other witnesses’ testimony	Testimony irrelevant because it predates the accident and thus does not show conditions at the time of accident	Exclusion was an abuse: testimony was relevant and could aid jury in assessing credibility and material facts
Cumulative/prejudice effect	Excluding central evidence (photo + Savio) likely affected jury’s ability to evaluate door appearance and credibility	Errors were harmless; jury still heard other witnesses	Court found the errors likely affected outcome and ordered a new trial

State v. Manuel T., 337 Conn. 429 (2020) (prima facie authentication suffices; integrity issues affect weight not admissibility)
Waldron v. Raccio, 166 Conn. 608 (1974) (witness testimony that photographs are fair representations renders them admissible)
State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23 (2001) (photographs admissible if they tend to prove or disprove a material fact)
Reville v. Reville, 312 Conn. 428 (2014) (relevance requires evidence to tend to make a material fact more or less probable)
Quaranta v. King, 133 Conn. App. 565 (2012) (appellate standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion plus prejudice required)
Booker v. Stern, 19 Conn. App. 322 (1989) (photographs taken later affect weight, not admissibility)
State v. Ferguson, 260 Conn. 339 (2002) (evidence bearing on witness credibility is relevant)