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

2,356 chars

not authorized under CUTPA.’’ Specifically, the plaintiff
         argues that an award of attorney’s fees under CUTPA
         is limited to those fees related to successful CUTPA
         claims, and that the court, ‘‘[b]y indiscriminately award-
         ing all fees requested by the defendant that were
         included [in his affidavit],’’ improperly calculated the
         amount of fees and costs the defendant was entitled to
         recover under CUTPA.15 We agree.
            We begin by setting forth our standard of review
         and the legal principles relevant to the plaintiff’s claim.
         ‘‘[W]e review an award of attorney’s fees under the
         abuse of discretion standard of review. This standard
         applies to the amount of fees awarded . . . and also
         to the trial court’s determination of the factual predicate
         justifying the award. . . . Under the abuse of discre-
         tion standard of review, [w]e will make every reason-
         able presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s
         ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discre-
         tion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited
         to the questions of whether the trial court correctly
         applied the law and reasonably could have reached
         the conclusion that it did.’’ (Internal quotation marks
         omitted.) Noyes v. Antiques at Pompey Hollow, LLC,
         144 Conn. App. 582, 597, 73 A.3d 794 (2013).
            General Statutes § 42-110g (d) provides in relevant
         part that ‘‘[i]n any action brought by a person under
         [CUTPA], the court may award . . . costs and reason-
         able attorneys’ fees based on the work reasonably per-
         formed by an attorney . . . .’’ This court has held that
         § 42-110g (d) ‘‘relates solely to claims related to the
         prosecution of a CUTPA claim and not to all claims.’’
         Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, 57 Conn. App. 189,
         200, 752 A.2d 1098 (2000). Accordingly, ‘‘[i]n the absence
         of abuse of discretion, the court can award attorney’s
           15
              The plaintiff has not challenged the reasonableness of the hourly rate
         charged by the defendant’s counsel.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 7

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text