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

Citation: Pearlman v. Gervolino, 234 Conn. App. 18 (2025) 2023.
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

3,035 chars

2023. On November 9, 2023, the court issued a memo-
randum of decision in which it found in favor of the
plaintiff on her claim of breach of contract for nonpay-
ment of rent and in favor of the defendant on counts
two and five of his counterclaim.7 With respect to count
two of the counterclaim, the court found that the plain-
tiff, ‘‘by admission through her pleading and her own
testimony,’’ failed to deposit the defendant’s security
deposit into an escrow account, as required by statute.
With respect to count five, the court found that the
plaintiff’s violations of § 47a-21 (h) constituted viola-
tions of CUTPA.8 Specifically, with respect to the
CUTPA violations, the court relied on the plaintiff’s
failure to place the security deposit into an escrow
account in violation of § 47a-21 (h) (1),9 and the plain-
tiff’s failure to provide the defendant with certain infor-
mation regarding his security deposit in violation of
§ 47a-21 (h) (4) (A).10 The court awarded the defendant
$500 in punitive damages on the CUTPA count of the
counterclaim.11 In addition, the court found that, ‘‘[b]ecause
7
In addition, the court found in favor of the defendant on count four of
the counterclaim and in favor of the plaintiff on counts one and three of
the counterclaim. See footnote 6 of this opinion.
8
The court found in favor of the plaintiff with respect to the remaining
CUTPA violations alleged in count five of the defendant’s counterclaim. See
footnote 5 of this opinion.
9
The court reasoned: ‘‘[T]his alone may not constitute a CUTPA violation.
However, coupled with the fact [that] the plaintiff withdrew the deposit
funds that were to have been escrowed for the defendant and then used
them for her own personal expenses, the court finds this constitutes both
a [statutory] violation . . . as well as a CUTPA violation. This was more
than a negligent failure to comply with the statute. It was an unscrupulous,
wilful and voluntary act to use the funds for her own personal expenses
outside of the enumerated uses authorized by the statute. . . . Simply put,
the actions of the plaintiff were unfair to the defendant.’’ (Citation omitted.)
10
The court reasoned: ‘‘The failure to provide the information was an
unfair act with respect to the defendant as the funds belonged to him and
he had a right to know where they were being held. By failing to reveal the
information, the plaintiff effectively hid from the defendant her use of the
funds for her personal benefit.’’
11
On appeal, the plaintiff does not challenge the court’s award of puni-
tive damages.
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text