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

2,565 chars

be wholly unrelated to the defendant’s CUTPA claim.
       The affidavit also includes numerous fees related to
       counsel’s review of the pleadings, filing and amending
       of the counterclaim, and correspondence with the
       defendant and opposing party. These itemized entries,
       however, do not apportion the corresponding fees
       among the defendant’s various counts of his counter-
       claim. And, although certain entries appear to relate
       solely to the defendant’s CUTPA count of his counter-
       claim,16 these services were billed in conjunction with
       more general services relating to the entire litigation,
       such as ‘‘trial preparation’’ and ‘‘[r]eview of new plead-
       ings.’’ In calculating the defendant’s award of attorney’s
       fees, however, the court included in its award all the
       costs and fees set forth in the defendant’s affidavit.
       Because the court did not limit its award of attorney’s
       fees to those fees incurred on the defendant’s CUTPA
       claim, but, rather, expressly awarded the defendant all
       ‘‘attorney’s fees and [costs incurred] in the defense of
       the plaintiff’s action and the prosecution of his counter-
       claims,’’ we conclude that the court abused its discre-
       tion in calculating the amount of attorney’s fees and
       costs the defendant was entitled to recover under
       CUTPA.17
         The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded
       for a new hearing on the defendant’s motion for attor-
       ney’s fees.
          In this opinion the other judges concurred.
         16
             Namely, several itemized entries in the affidavit concern the defendant’s
       objection to the plaintiff’s motion to strike the CUTPA count of the counter-
       claim.
          17
             In the plaintiff’s brief to this court, she suggests that the trial court
       ‘‘sought to punish [her] by awarding additional fees to the defendant beyond
       what was authorized by law’’ because she had failed to appear at the January
       23, 2024 hearing. The record is devoid of any evidence to support the
       plaintiff’s contention. We emphasize that ‘‘[t]he term abuse of discretion
       does not imply a bad motive or wrong purpose but merely means that the
       ruling appears to have been made on untenable grounds.’’ (Internal quotation
       marks omitted.) Medical Device Solutions, LLC v. Aferzon, 207 Conn. App.
       707, 774, 264 A.3d 130, cert. denied, 340 Conn. 911, 264 A.3d 94 (2021).

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text