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

2,953 chars

a uniformity of defense in the consolidated cases. The
       defendants’ attorney, however, did not distinctly chal-
       lenge the court’s ruling to consolidate. Although it is
       not dispositive that the defendants’ attorney did not
       use the word ‘‘objection,’’ it is nonetheless significant
       that he did not refer to the court’s ruling, did not ask
       the court to reconsider its ruling, did not proffer any
       legal arguments as to why consolidation was improper,
       and did not identify any prejudice that the ruling might
       have caused his clients. The defendants’ attorney set
       forth his belief, which is reasonable, that each case
       should be considered on its own merits. It does not
       appear that the plaintiff’s attorney considered this belief
       to have risen to the level of an objection to the court’s
       ruling, for the plaintiff’s attorney did not respond. More-
       over, once the court reassured counsel that it was up
       to the task of devoting appropriate attention to each
       distinct case, the defendants’ attorney thanked the
       court, which reasonably reflected that his concerns had
       been addressed to his satisfaction. On this record, we
       do not conclude that the defendants’ attorney articu-
       lated with sufficient clarity before the trial court the
       appellate claim that he presently advances before this
       court. The defendants have not demonstrated that this
       claim warrants an extraordinary level of review, and,
       thus, we decline to review it.11
          11
             Embedded within their briefing with respect to this unpreserved claim,
       the defendants in AC 46037 have raised an additional claim in which they
       argue that the court prejudiced them by requiring counsel to file ‘‘a single
       posttrial brief encompassing all five cases’’ and that the court improperly
       limited posttrial briefs to no more than fifteen pages, in derogation of Prac-
       tice Book § 4-6. The defendants presently argue that these ‘‘orders’’
       amounted to an abuse of the court’s discretion. The defendants do not direct
       our attention to what portion of the record reflects these orders. Assuming,
       arguendo, that we have a record of these orders, it appears that the defen-
       dants are challenging them for the first time on appeal. The defendants have
       not identified when they objected, and we are unable to verify, on the basis
       of our review of the voluminous record that they objected to these orders
       at trial, the distinct grounds for their objection, and the nature of the court’s
       response. This court, relying on Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy, 349 Conn. 513,
       589–90, 321 A.3d 295 (2024), recently has stated that ‘‘it is the responsibility
Page 26                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text