From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elliott v. Staron

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Dec 12, 2000
255 Conn. 18 (Conn. 2000)

Summary

awarding lost profits for interference with contractual relations and violation of CUTPA

Summary of this case from Bridgeport Harbour v. Ganim

Opinion

(SC 16209)

Argued November 1, 2000

Officially released December 12, 2000

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of a lease agreement, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, where the defendant filed a counterclaim, and tried to the court, Stevens, J.; judgment for the plaintiffs on the complaint and on the counterclaim, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, O'Connell, C.J., and Sullivan and Spallone, Js., which affirmed the trial court's judgment, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Wesley W. Horton and, on the brief, Andre Nagy, for the appellant (defendant). Ridgely Brown, with whom, on the brief, was Daniel Shepro, for the appellees (plaintiffs).


Opinion


The defendant, Raymond Staron, the executor of the estate of Pauline M. Staron, appeals, pursuant to our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs, E. J. Elliott and John M. Elliott, on their complaint and on the defendant's counterclaim. Elliott v. Staron, 54 Conn. App. 632, 736 A.2d 632 (1999). The trial court had determined that the defendant (1) breached the lease between the parties, (2) tortiously interfered with the plaintiffs' business relations and (3) violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's judgment to the extent that the judgment was based on a finding that the defendant had breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?" Elliott v. Staron, 251 Conn. 911, 739 A.2d 1247 (1999).

The gravamen of the defendant's claim in this appeal is that the trial court's finding impermissibly applied the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to an obligation to renegotiate the lease between the parties, rather than to the enforcement of the lease. After reviewing the entire record on appeal, and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that the case does not squarely present that issue. We therefore conclude that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.


Summaries of

Elliott v. Staron

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Dec 12, 2000
255 Conn. 18 (Conn. 2000)

awarding lost profits for interference with contractual relations and violation of CUTPA

Summary of this case from Bridgeport Harbour v. Ganim
Case details for

Elliott v. Staron

Case Details

Full title:E. J. ELLIOTT ET AL. v . RAYMOND STARON, EXECUTOR (ESTATE OF PAULINE M…

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Dec 12, 2000

Citations

255 Conn. 18 (Conn. 2000)
761 A.2d 1291

Citing Cases

Vesco v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company

The insured's demand may itself be excessive and unwarranted, or the insurer's low appraisal of the claim may…

Velencik v. First Union National Bank

(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Elliott v. Staron, 46 Conn. Sup. 38, 52, 735 A.2d 902…