MICHELE SIENKIEWICZ ET AL.
KRISTINE RAGAGLIA ET AL.
Submitted on briefs May 25, 2016
from Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield,
Jessen filed a brief for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Jepsen, attorney general, and Robert J. Deich-ert, assistant
attorney general, filed a brief for the appellees
DiPentima, C. J., and Lavine and Alvord, Js.
plaintiffs, Michele Sienkiewicz and Craig Sienkiewicz, both
individually and in their capacities as next friends of their
children appeal from the judgment of the trial
court dismissing their complaint. They claim that they
properly brought their action under the accidental failure of
suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592,  and that
sovereign immunity does not bar their claims. The plaintiffs
failed to challenge the trial court’s conclusion that
§ 52-592 is inapplicable where, as here, a previous
appeal related to the underlying action was withdrawn by the
plaintiffs. As a result of this inadequate briefing, we
decline to review their claims. See Practice Book §
67-4. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
court granted the defendants’ motion to
dismisson October 10, 2014, issuing the following
order: ‘‘The motion to dismiss is granted, and
the case is dismissed in its entirety. The court makes a
finding that [§] 52-592 . . . does not apply, and the
amended complaint of [May 6, 2010] does not bring an action
against the individually named defendants in their individual
capacity, but only in their scope of employment by the state
of Connecticut. . . . [Section 52-592] has no
applicability where there was a final judgment and the trial
court was appealed, and such appeal was withdrawn by the
party seeking the benefits of [the]
accidental failure of suit.’’ (Emphasis
appeal, the plaintiffs raise a number of claims, but they
fail to address one of the court’s reasons for granting
the defendants’ motion to dismiss, namely, whether an
action can be brought under § 52-592 after the
plaintiffs have withdrawn their appeal of the prior
action. As a result, the plaintiffs have briefed
inadequately their claims regarding § 52-592 in this
Book § 67-4 prescribes the required components of an
appellant’s brief. It is necessary to this
court’s review of a party’s claims on appeal that
his brief contain, inter alia, argument and analysis
regarding the alleged errors of the trial court, with
appropriate references to the facts bearing on the issues
raised. . . .
is well settled that [w]e are not required to review claims
that are inadequately briefed. . . . We consistently have
held that [a]nalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is
required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to
brief the issue properly. . . . We do not reverse the
judgment of a trial court on the basis of challenges to its
rulings that have not been adequately briefed.’’
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Zappola v. Zappola, 159 Conn.App. 84,
86-87, 122 A.3d 267 (2015).
not address the propriety of the trial court’s ruling
because the plaintiffs have presented this court with an
inadequate brief regarding an issue that was central to the
trial court’s holding.The judgment is affirmed.