Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)

Citation: Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
Parent Document: Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2013-03-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7914988/carrillo-v-goldberg/ ↗

Full Text

1,257 chars

GRUENDEL, J.
The plaintiffs, Luis Carrillo and Sandra Carrillo, appeal from the judgment of the trial court awarding them damages and interest for the failure of the defendants, Keith Goldberg and Leigh Ann Goldberg, to return their security deposit upon the termination of their lease in violation of General Statutes § 47 a-21 (d), punitive damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and interest pursuant to General Statutes § 52-192a. The plaintiffs claim that the court erred in (1) declining to award them double damages and interest pursuant to § 47a-21 (d) (2),1 (2) miscalculating interest pursuant to § 47a-21 (i) (l),2 (3) declining to award them treble damages pursuant to *303General Statutes § 52-564,3 (4) awarding them insufficient punitive damages and attorney’s fees for the defendants’ CUTPA violation, (5) denying their request for posttrial discovery of the defendants’ financial background and their motion for a hearing on punitive damages, (6) denying their motion for a hearing on attorney’s fees and (7) declining to award them interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a.4 We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

Other Sections in This Document (52)

Full Text