Pearlman v. Gervolino, 234 Conn. App. 18 (2025)

Citation: Pearlman v. Gervolino, 234 Conn. App. 18 (2025)
Parent Document: Pearlman v. Gervolino, 234 Conn. App. 18 (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-07-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10647034/pearlman-v-gervolino/ ↗

Full Text

2,580 chars

continued to January 23, 2024, by request of the plaintiff.
On the morning of the January 23, 2024 hearing, the
plaintiff filed a motion for an additional continuance
on the basis that she was ‘‘out of state.’’ The court
denied her request for an additional continuance,14 and
the hearing on the defendant’s motion for attorney’s
fees proceeded in the plaintiff’s absence. Following the
hearing, the court issued a written order indicating that
‘‘[t]he defendant appeared at the hearing, and the court
considered the defendant’s motion for [attorney’s] fees
. . . [and] also reviewed the plaintiff’s objection [to the
defendant’s motion] and had defense counsel address
any specific objections raised [therein].’’ The court,
‘‘[h]aving reviewed the bases of the defendant’s motion
. . . [found that] the defendant has set forth a legal
basis for his claim for attorney’s fees and [costs] in the
defense of the plaintiff’s action and the prosecution of
his counterclaims.’’ (Citations omitted.) Accordingly,
the court awarded the defendant attorney’s fees and
costs in the amount of $12,024.51, which included all
the fees and costs set forth in the defendant’s affidavit.
On February 14, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion to
reargue the award of attorney’s fees, asserting, inter
alia, that ‘‘[t]he court abused its discretion in awarding
attorney’s fees to the defendant [related to] counts [for]
which [he is] not entitled’’ to recover fees. The court
denied the plaintiff’s motion to reargue. This appeal
followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused
its discretion in ‘‘awarding attorney’s fees and costs
14
In a written order issued on the same date, the court stated: ‘‘[The]
plaintiff was previously granted a continuance on December 12, 2023. Fur-
ther, notice of the today’s hearing was issued on December 13, 2023, yet
the plaintiff waited until the day of the hearing to move for an additional
continuance. As noted on the judicial form for continuances, such motions
are to be made at least three days before the scheduled event. Lastly, other
than indicating that she is out of state, the movant provides no reason as
to how and why she is prevented from attending the hearing.’’
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text