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

2,396 chars

fees under CUTPA only for those expenses that were
       related to the prosecution of a CUTPA claim.’’ Id.; see
       also Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 Conn.
       App. 589, 626 n.26, 43 A.3d 722, cert. denied, 305 Conn.
       920, 47 A.3d 389 (2012), and cert. denied, 305 Conn.
       920, 47 A.3d 389 (2012).
          In Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, supra, 57 Conn.
       App. 192, the plaintiff brought an action against the
       defendants, Laverne Brown and the city of Hartford,
       for breach of two separate home improvement con-
       tracts, one private contract with Brown, and the other
       contract with the city. Brown, in turn, asserted a coun-
       terclaim consisting of three counts, one of which alleged
       a violation of CUTPA. Id., 193. Brown prevailed on her
       CUTPA counterclaim and moved for an award of attor-
       ney’s fees, upon which ‘‘the court ordered Brown’s
       counsel to provide an itemized account of the time and
       expense required to litigate the CUTPA claim.’’ Id., 200.
       Brown subsequently submitted a bill totaling $19,413.50,
       which the trial court awarded to Brown as attorney’s
       fees under CUTPA. Id. On cross appeal to this court,
       Brown claimed that the trial court improperly calcu-
       lated her attorney’s fees. Specifically, she contended
       that, pursuant to § 42-110g (d), ‘‘she [was] entitled to all
       attorney’s fees incurred in the defense of [the plaintiff’s]
       action and the prosecution of her counterclaim.’’
       (Emphasis in original.) Id. This court disagreed and
       concluded that the trial court properly limited its award
       of attorney’s fees solely to the fees Brown ‘‘incurred in
       the pursuit of her CUTPA claim’’ and properly excluded
       the ‘‘fees [related to] her other counterclaims.’’ Id.
         In Heller v. D. W. Fish Realty Co., 93 Conn. App. 727,
       734–36, 890 A.2d 113 (2006), this court further clarified
       the scope of attorney’s fees recoverable under CUTPA.
       In that case, the plaintiffs brought an action against
       the defendant for breach of contract, negligence, and
       violations of CUTPA. Id., 730. After prevailing on all
       claims, the plaintiffs sought to recover attorney’s fees
Page 8                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text