Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Citation
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Parent Document
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1993-07-20
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
Full Text
1,421 charsOur Supreme Court has perceived the disparity of power between landlords and tenants, and has recognized that the chances of deterring landlords’ abuses of power are materially increased by subjecting them to the payment of punitive damages. Freeman v. Alamo Management Co., supra, 683-84. The facts found in this case show such an abuse of the power held by the defendants as landlords and directed toward the vulnerable plaintiffs as tenants. Punitive damages are appropriate because the circumstances of this case satisfy the basic requirements that justify such an award. The facts found lead inescapably to the conclusion that the defendants were recklessly indifferent to the rights of the plaintiffs, and that they intentionally and wantonly violated those rights. See Pullman, Com-*139ley, Bradley & Reeves v. Tuck-it-away, Bridgeport, Inc., 28 Conn. App. 460, 464, 611 A.2d 435, cert. denied, 223 Conn. 926, 614 A.2d 825 (1992) (use of talismanic words is not required where memorandum of decision contains all necessary subordinate findings to support trial court’s conclusion). Under the circumstances, we conclude that the absence of a specific finding other than “wrongful conduct” did not impair the court’s ultimate conclusion regarding punitive damages. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendants’ outrageous conduct warranted invoking the punitive provisions of CUTPA. II