Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)

Citation: Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)
Parent Document: Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-05-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10513133/freccia-v-freccia/ ↗

Full Text

3,181 chars

process action against the defendants, Guin Freccia1
         and David D’Andrea, seeking to obtain a judgment of
         possession with respect to real property located at 95
         Bryam Road in Greenwich. The court rendered a judg-
         ment of possession in favor of the plaintiff in that action.
         On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the plaintiff
         lacked the power to commence the underlying summary
         process action, (2) the court improperly failed to con-
         clude that they had a present right to remain in the
         subject property or that equitable considerations pre-
         cluded the plaintiff from obtaining a judgment in her
         favor, and (3) the court prejudiced the defendants by
         consolidating five related summary process actions
         for trial.
           In AC 46038, the plaintiff, Theresa K. Freccia, in her
         individual capacity, brought a summary process action
         against the defendants, Frank J. Freccia III, Tammie
         Freccia, Locksley Freccia, and D’Artagnan Freccia,2
         seeking to obtain a judgment of possession with respect
         to real property located at ‘‘40 Locust Street, Building
         2 and Garage’’ in Greenwich.3 In that action, the court
             1
              In their principal appellate brief, the defendants in AC 46037 state that,
         although the plaintiff brought the notice to quit and complaint against ‘‘Guin
         Freccia,’’ that defendant’s proper name is ‘‘Guinevere Freccia.’’ We, however,
         will refer to ‘‘Guin Freccia’’ because that is how she is identified in the record.
            In the interest of simplicity and in light of the commonality of the surnames
         of the majority of the parties in this case, in this opinion we will refer to each
         of the Freccias by their respective first names unless otherwise specified.
            2
              In their principal appellate brief, the defendants in AC 46038 state that
         the person identified in the plaintiff’s action as ‘‘D’Artagnan Freccia’’ does
         not exist but that ‘‘Dartagnan Freccia,’’ who is also named as a defendant
         in a separate action, is the plaintiff’s granddaughter. We, however, will refer
         to ‘‘D’Artagnan Freccia’’ because that is how she is identified in the record.
            3
              The original complaint was brought by the plaintiff in her capacity as the
         executor of the estate of the decedent. The plaintiff, still in her representative
         capacity, later filed a revised complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a
         motion to substitute Theresa K. Freccia, in her individual capacity, in lieu
         of Theresa K. Freccia, as the executor of the decedent’s estate, as the
         plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed an amended revised complaint, dated Febru-
         ary 9, 2022, reflecting the substitution. In support of the motion to substitute,
         the plaintiff represented that, upon the death of the decedent, the plaintiff,
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 3

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text