Opinion
(6436)
Argued January 19, 1989
Decision released February 8, 1989
Action to recover damages for the allegedly wrongful discharge of the plaintiff from his employment, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and referred to Mary E. Sommer, attorney state trial referee, who filed a report recommending judgment for the defendant; thereafter, the court, Lewis, J., rendered judgment in accordance with the referee's report, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. No error.
Raymond E. Humiston, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
William H. Narwold, with whom, on the brief, was Karen L. Goldthwaite, for the appellee (defendant).
This wrongful discharge and defamation action was heard by an attorney trial referee who issued a detailed report with twenty-nine separate findings of fact and eight pages of legal analysis. The legal analysis thoroughly reviewed Connecticut law of both wrongful discharge and defamation. The plaintiff then moved the trial court to correct the report pursuant to Practice Book 438 and in this motion belatedly raised the issue of the applicability of California law to his relationship with the defendant. Thereafter, the trial referee issued a supplemental report recommending the denial of the plaintiff's motion to correct and rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that California law should apply.
The trial court denied the motion to correct and accepted the referee's report. In doing so, the trial court prepared a memorandum of decision in which it carefully reviewed the evidence, the findings and legal analysis of the trial referee, the plaintiff's motion to correct and the supplemental report.
Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to review further the judgment of the trial court. Following the supplemental report of the trial referee, the plaintiff failed to file either an exception to the report pursuant to Practice Book 439 or objections to acceptance of the report pursuant to Practice Book 440. The lack of compliance with the procedural requisites necessary to preserve challenges to an attorney trial referee's report precludes appellate review by this court. See, e.g., Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 199 Conn. 496, 508 A.2d 415 (1986); Dorsen v. Kay, 13 Conn. App. 645, 538 A.2d 1080, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 805, 545 A.2d 1102 (1988); LiVolsi v. Pylypchuk, 12 Conn. App. 527, 532 A.2d 593 (1987).