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

2,724 chars

court awarding the defendant, Douglas Gervolino, attor-
ney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-
110a et seq.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the
court improperly awarded the defendant attorney’s fees
and costs not authorized under CUTPA. Specifically,
the plaintiff claims that the court’s award of attorney’s
fees was not limited to those fees associated with the
defendant’s CUTPA claim.2 We agree and, accordingly,
reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the
case for a new hearing on the defendant’s motion for
attorney’s fees.3
The following facts, as found by the trial court, and
procedural history are relevant to the plaintiff’s appeal.
On July 19, 2022, the defendant entered into a written
lease with the plaintiff for the use and occupancy of
130 Head of Meadow Road in Newtown (premises) from
August 1, 2022, through May 31, 2023, at a rate of $3700
per month. The defendant paid a $7400 security deposit
to the plaintiff to secure the lease. ‘‘Not long after taking
occupancy, problems arose between the parties.’’ The
defendant ‘‘claimed that the premises was unfit for
human habitation and, on that basis, withheld rent for
the . . . months of . . . September and October,
2022.’’ Consequently, the plaintiff commenced a sum-
mary process action seeking possession of the prem-
ises. On October 28, 2022, the court in that action ren-
dered judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff,
1
Pursuant to CUTPA, ‘‘[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any
trade or commerce.’’ General Statutes § 42-110b (a).
Attorney’s fees may be awarded for a violation of CUTPA pursuant to
General Statutes § 42-110g (d).
2
The defendant did not file a brief in this appeal. We, therefore, have
considered this appeal on the basis of the record, the plaintiff’s appellate
brief, and the plaintiff’s oral argument before this court.
3
In light of our disposition, we need not address the plaintiff’s additional
claim that the trial court erred by denying her motion to reargue the award
of attorney’s fees. See, e.g., Glory Chapel International Cathedral v. Phila-
delphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 224 Conn. App. 501, 517 n.8, 313 A.3d 1273
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text