Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)

Citation: Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)
Parent Document: Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2011-06-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2551132/blinkoff-v-commission-on-human-... ↗

Full Text

558 chars

At the public hearing, the plaintiff contended that her business suffered and she had to hire attorneys as a result of retaliation by the city. In his decision, however, the referee found that the plaintiff failed to offer persuasive evidence that her business operations suffered as a result of the city’s two acts of retaliation, namely, initiating the 1995 lawsuit and delaying her permit renewal hearing. The referee also concluded that fees paid to attorney Michael Rybak at the time of her permit renewal would have been incurred regardless of the *725

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text