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

2,439 chars

opposing party to address the claim—would encourage
trial by ambuscade, which is unfair to both the trial
court and the opposing party. . . . [T]he determination
of whether a claim has been properly preserved will
depend on a careful review of the record to ascertain
whether the claim on appeal was articulated below
with sufficient clarity to place the trial court [and the
opposing party] on reasonable notice of that very same
claim.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.) Lowthert v. Freedom of
Information Commission, 220 Conn. App. 48, 56–57,
297 A.3d 218 (2023).
At the outset, we note that the same attorney repre-
sented all of the defendants in these related summary
process actions. The defendants submit that their attor-
ney expressly objected to the court’s decision to consol-
idate the related cases. Our review of the record reflects
that, at the very beginning of the trial, after the court
expressed its belief that it would be ‘‘easier’’ to hear
all of the cases at once, the plaintiff’s attorney acqui-
esced in this view by noting his opinion that the cases
reflected a ‘‘uniformity of defense . . . .’’ The defen-
dants’ attorney responded to that observation as fol-
lows: ‘‘I understand the . . . desire and the need to
conserve judicial resources. I am concerned that . . .
these cases do stand on their facts separately though
[and that] the defenses are similar in three of the four
cases, but there are factual distinctions and there may
be some overlap as my brother [counsel] has indicated,
but there are some very clear distinctions . . . .’’ The
court responded, ‘‘then I have unlimited judicial
resources for you, counsel.’’ The defendants’ counsel
replied, ‘‘Thank you, Your Honor.’’
The statements made by the defendants’ attorney
appear to have been a response to the opinion expressed
by the plaintiff’s attorney that the defenses in the vari-
ous actions were factually indistinct or that there was
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 25

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text