Begley v. State, 234 Conn. App. 820 (2025)

In February, 2016, the plaintiff received a report that
         Steven Citta, a detective with the Hartford Police Depart-
         ment (Hartford police) who was assigned to work in
         the intelligence center as a regional intelligence liaison
         officer and reported directly to the plaintiff, had behaved
         in a sexually inappropriate manner. At that time, the
         plaintiff reported directly to Lieutenant Shawn Corey,
         made in the [plaintiff’s] [b]rief, and the proper deposition pages were
         attached. In the [a]ppellate [a]ppendix, both the original erroneous deposi-
         tion pages cited in [the] [p]laintiff’s [o]bjection to [s]ummary [j]udgment
         for those depositions, as well as the proper deposition pages cited in the
         [a]ppellate [b]rief were included in the [plaintiff’s] [a]ppendix. All the evi-
         dence cited by [the plaintiff] in [his] objection to summary judgment brief
         accurately reflected the actual deposition testimony, despite the erroneous
         page citations and attached deposition pages.’’
            Our review of the record confirms that the plaintiff submitted in the
         appendix of his appellate brief evidence that he did not submit to the trial
         court in opposition to summary judgment. Of course, this court cannot, when
         assessing the propriety of a summary judgment ruling, consider evidence
         that was not before the trial court. See Solon v. Slater, 345 Conn. 794, 814
         n.9, 287 A.3d 574 (2023). Because the plaintiff did not conform the materials
         in his appellate appendix to the evidence submitted to the trial court, this
         court was left with the task of determining which of the 575 pages of the
         appellate appendix were before the trial court. Although ‘‘[i]t is not the role
         of this court to scour the record in search of support for a party’s claim on
         appeal’’; Weaver v. Sena, 199 Conn. App. 852, 866, 238 A.3d 103 (2020); we
         nevertheless have carefully reviewed all the evidence submitted to the trial
         court on summary judgment.
            5
              At that time, there were two other units in the Counter Terrorism Unit,
         namely, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Critical Infrastructure Pro-
         tection Unit. We refer to the units collectively as the intelligence center for
         ease of reading.
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  Page 3