Argued May 18, 2015
Action to recover damages for, inter alia, fraudulent nondisclosure, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London, where the court, Hon. Seymour L. Hendel, judge trial referee, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon; thereafter, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for reargument, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
The plaintiff sought damages from the defendant bank for, inter alia, fraudulent nondisclosure. She claimed that certain fraudulent $10,000 checks had been deposited into her checking account in 2003 and that she was unaware of the alleged fraud until 2009, when, while incarcerated, she learned that another inmate and an accomplice had purchased account numbers from an unnamed employee of the defendant, including the plaintiff's account number, and that the plaintiff's information had been sold. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant never notified her of the alleged fraud and attempted to conceal it from her. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on statutes of limitations grounds and rendered judgment for the defendant. The court thereafter denied the plaintiff's motion for reargument, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. She claimed that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to when she became aware of the alleged fraud. Held that the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff having failed to oppose that motion with any admissible evidence that would demonstrate a dispute of material fact as to the defendant's knowledge and concealment of its employee's involvement in the purported fraud so as to support a tolling of the limitations period: the plaintiff's opposition consisted only of her affidavit, which was devoid of a single fact that would demonstrate concealment by the defendant and was filled with inadmissible hearsay as to the alleged 2009 information from the fellow inmate, from whom she failed to obtain an affidavit; accordingly, because the summary judgment motion properly was granted, there was no need for this court to review the propriety of the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
Chandra Bozelko, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
John C. Pitblado, with whom was Jon Sterling, for the appellee (defendant).
Lavine, Mullins and
[159 Conn.App. 823] MULLINS, J.
The self-represented plaintiff, Chandra Bozelko, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Webster Bank, N.A. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly ruled that each count of her complaint was barred by a properly asserted statute of limitations defense and that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to reconsider. We affirm the judgment of the court.
The following facts and relevant procedural history inform our review. In a complaint dated September 1, 2011, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in four counts, namely, fraudulent nondisclosure, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and spoliation of evidence. In relevant part, the plaintiff alleged that, in July, 2003, she had a checking account with the defendant, and that on two separate occasions in November, 2003, a fraudulent check in the amount of $10,000 was deposited into her account. She also alleged that the defendant had her arrested and charged with one count of larceny in the first degree and two counts of forgery in the third degree, but that these
charges [159 Conn.App. 824] later were nolled. The plaintiff alleged that, while she was in prison, a fellow inmate informed her that she and an accomplice " had purchased account numbers from an employee [of the defendant] at the 80 Elm Street, New Haven branch in 2003 and that [the] plaintiff's information was [among the] account numbers sold." She further alleged that the defendant " never notified any customers, including [the] plaintiff, of [the] security breach by the employee at the 80 Elm Street branch [and that] . . . [the defendant] made every attempt to conceal its wrongful acts and omissions to [the] plaintiff." On the basis of these alleged facts, the plaintiff brought her four count complaint.
The defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and raised several special defenses to each count, including statutes of limitations defenses under General Statutes § § 52-584, 42-110g, 52-577, 52-576, " or other applicable statute(s) of limitation." The plaintiff filed a reply in which she simply denied each special defense. On October 1, 2012, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment with an accompanying memorandum of law, affidavits and other documents. The plaintiff filed a motion in opposition, along with her own affidavit. On April 23, 2014, following a hearing on the motion, the court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on statutes of limitations grounds. The plaintiff then filed a motion to reargue and ...