2024, and ordered the defendant to continue to make
use and occupancy payments to the plaintiff.5 This
appeal followed.
I
The defendant first claims that the court violated
his constitutional right to due process by denying his
motion for a continuance of the trial and refusing to
consider his motion to preclude evidence and testimony
that had not previously been disclosed by the plaintiff.6
When the trial court denied his motion for a continu-
ance, the defendant argued, inter alia, that ‘‘[t]his is a
due process issue. In summary process, obviously, a
person’s housing is at stake. Due process is very
important.’’ The defendant essentially reiterates that
argument to this court, arguing that he has a constitu-
tional right to housing as a ‘‘welfare entitlement . . . .’’
Even if we were to credit the defendant’s argument that
he has a constitutional property interest in subsidized
housing, he failed to identify, either to the trial court
or in his brief to this court, which of his due process
rights were violated. At oral argument before this court,
the defendant asserted for the first time that his consti-
tutional rights to confrontation and cross-examination
had been violated. ‘‘[I]t is well settled that arguments
cannot be raised for the first time at oral argument.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vaccaro v. Shell
Beach Condominium, Inc., 169 Conn. App. 21, 46 n.28,
5
On July 18, 2024, the parties entered into a stipulation that the defendant
would pay $93 each month for use and occupancy of the premises while
this appeal is pending.
6
The defendant argues, for the first time in his reply brief, that the court’s
denial of his motion for a continuance and failure to consider his motion
to preclude constituted an abuse of discretion. ‘‘[I]t is . . . a well established
principle that arguments cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction,
211 Conn. App. 77, 101, 271 A.3d 1058, cert. denied, 343 Conn. 924, 275 A.3d
1213, cert. denied sub nom. Lewis v. Quiros, U.S. , 143 S. Ct. 335,
214 L. Ed. 2d 150 (2022).
Page 10 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0