For a Free Consultation Call: 860-527-4226 | Fax: 860-527-0214

Kenny Brimmer amp; Mahoney, LLC

20-30 Beaver Road, Suite 103
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
Telephone: 860-527-4226
Fax: 860-527-0214

Representative Cases

Doe v. Manheimer, 212 Conn. 748 (1989) is a premises rape case in which the actual rapist was never apprehended and the property owner was absolved of civil responsibility on the basis of the lack of foreseeability and lack of proximate cause. Further, any violation of the health code ordinance concerning natural growth was deemed not negligence per se since the hazard subject to this statute was only a condition, and not a cause, of the Plaintiff's injuries.

Cora Sokolowski v. Medi Mart, Inc., 24 Conn.App. 276 (1990) is a plaintiff’s premises liability case. The plaintiff, Cora Sokolowski, sustained a fall in the defendant’s store when she slipped on spilled aftershave. The defendant denied liability, claiming it had no notice of the spill. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed based on numerous evidentiary issues, and the failure of the Trial Court to grant its motion for directed verdict. The Appellate Court confirmed the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Andrew Dawson, et al. v. David Farr, et al., 227 Conn. 780, 632 A.2d 41 (1993) is a case wherein a baseball player and local team sought a temporary junction against The American Legion to prevent The American Legion from enforcing its eligibility rules and authority to declare of forfeiture of the team’s games. After trial, plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction was granted. An appeal was taken by The American Legion to enforce its interpretation of the geographic player eligibility rules and other provisions of its regulations. The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut overruled the lower Court’s denial of the defendants’ Counterclaim and ordered the matter reversed and remanded. Ultimately, the ability of The American Legion to enforce its player eligibility rules was sustained.

Lawrence Puchalsky v. Theodore Rappahahn et al., 63 Conn.App. 72, 774 A.2d 1029 (2001) was a case where the defendant, while on his way to enter the company premises, was driving through the picket line at the entrance when he was alleged to have struck the assistant steward of the Union with his automobile. The case was tried to a jury and evidence was introduced that the steward had in fact, attacked the vehicle which Rappahahn was operating, and wrenched the car’s mirror off the vehicle, falling in the ground in the process. A defendant’s verdict was returned by the jury and the plaintiff appealed on a variety or interesting legal issues. The verdict for the defendant was sustained by the Appellate Court.

     Stanley v. Lincoln, 75 Conn.App. 781 (2003) is a tree cutting case. Plaintiff claimed the neighbors intentionally cut down trees on her property without permission. The jury found for the Plaintiff and awarded the cord wood value of the cut trees. The court thereafter awarded Plaintiff treble damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-560. The plaintiff appealed claiming error regarding preclusion of evidence of replacement value. The Connecticut Appellate Court held that the proper measure of damages was either diminution of value of the property after the alleged cutting or the value of the cut trees as timber or lumber. Replacement value was not the proper measure of damages.

Constance Gordon v. H.N.S. Management Company, Inc. and Granville Downs et al. v. H.N.S. Management Company Inc., 272 Conn. 81, 861 A.2d 1160 (2004) are consolidated cases wherein a bus driver and a passenger claimed injuries as a result of bus accidents and who sought uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage from H.N.S. Management Company. After trial to the court, the trial judge rejected the company’s claims that the actions against it were bared by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The defendant appealed and was heard by the Connecticut Supreme Court. On the basis of the briefs and arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that H.N.S. Management Company, under a variety of statutory provisions, was an arm of the State for the purpose of exclusion from the requirements that it provide uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The Trial Court findings were overruled, and the defendant prevailed.

     Ucci v. Ucci, 114 Conn.App. 256 (2009) is a case wherein the parties' marriage was dissolved and the defendant husband moved to modify his post-judgment alimony obligation.  The motion to modify was denied and the defendant husband appealed.  On appeal, the appellate court found that the defendant husband had not properly preserved for review his claim that the motion to modify was governed solely by the separation agreement incorporated into the divorce degree rather than by consideration of statutory factors.  Thus, the decision of the trial court was affirmed, and the plaintiff wife prevailed.

     Shenkman-Tyler v. Central Mutual Insurance Co., 126 Conn.App. 733 (2011) is a case where the plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action against his ex-wife and her insurer claiming entitlement to certain insurance proceeds after he allegedly burned down her beach house.  The trial court granted a motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdication grounded in lack of standing and plaintiff appealed.  Upon appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court, and the defendant prevailed.

     Saleh v. Ribeiro Trucking, LLC, 303 Conn. 276 (2011) is a case wherein a plaintiff was rearended on the highway suffering permanent injuries.  The case was tried in the trial court and the jury returned a verdict in excess of $700,000.00.  The trial court ordered a remittitur grossly reducing the award.  Appeal was taken.  Upon appeal, the appellate court found that the remittitur was not proper. The decision was affirmed upon certification by the Supreme Court, and the plaintiff prevailed.

     Cirinna v. Kosciuszkiewicz, 2012 WL 6571710, ___ Conn.App. ___ (2012) is a case wherein the plaintiff neighbor sued for an easement to use a common driveway existing between two properties when the defendant neighbor put up a fence blocking access to a parking area to the rear of plaintiff's property.  The case was tried and the trial court found that the plaintiff had acquired an easement to use the common driveway and ordered the defendant to remove the fence.  The defendant appealed.  Upon appeal, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court, and the plaintiff prevailed.


LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbel

Attorney Advertising. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.[ Site Map ] [ Bookmark Us ]