December 7, 2016
from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Wiese, J.
Njoku, self-represented, the appellant (named defendant).
J. Migliaccio, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Lavine, Beach and West, Js.
a trial to the court, the self-represented defendant, Edwin
Njoku, appeals from the judgment rendered by the court in
favor of the plaintiff, Suzette Brown. On appeal, the
defendant claims that the court (1) erred by failing
‘‘to enter an appearance'' for Christus
Medical Group, P.C. (business),  (2) abused its discretion by
denying his request for a continuance, (3) improperly found
that the plaintiff had sustained her burden of proof, and (4)
denied him the right to due process and a fair trial by
failing to let him participate in ‘‘trial
management'' and to oppose a trial to the court. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
record discloses the following facts. The plaintiff commenced
the present action on July 22, 2013. In her complaint, she
alleged five counts: three against the defendant, i.e.,
battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress; and two against
the business, i.e., negligent supervision and respondeat
superior. In its memorandum of decision, the court found that
the plaintiff was a patient of the defendant, a physician,
from whom she sought medical treatment for injuries she
sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in July,
2010. The plaintiff went to the defendant's office for
treatment between July and October, 2010. During her visits,
the defendant inappropriately touched the plaintiff's
buttocks and breasts. The defendant's physical contact
with the plaintiff was unrelated to appropriate medical care.
As a proximate cause of the defendant's inappropriate
touching, the plaintiff sustained emotional injuries and was
traumatized by the defendant's unwanted sexual advances.
The court awarded the plaintiff $35, 000 as fair, just, and
reasonable compensation for the defendant's tortious
conduct. The defendant appealed from the court's
defendant has raised four claims on appeal. He first claims
that the court erred by failing ‘‘to enter an
appearance'' on behalf of the business. At trial, the
defendant appeared as a self-represented,  or pro se, party
and sought to file an appearance on behalf of the
businessofwhichhewas the sole owner. The defendant is not a
member of the bar. ‘‘Any person who is not an
attorney is prohibited from practicing law, except that any
person may practice law, or plead in any court of this state
‘in his own cause.' General Statutes § 51-88
(d) (2). The authorization to appear pro se is limited to
representing one's own cause, and does not permit
individuals to appear pro se in a representative
capacity.'' Expressway Associates II v. Friendly
Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut, 34 Conn.App. 543, 546,
642 A.2d 62, cert. denied, 230 Conn. 915, 645 A.2d 1018
(1994). The defendant had no authority to represent the
business. The court, therefore, properly defaulted the
business for failure to appear.
unable to review the defendant's remaining claims that
the court abused its discretion by failing to grant him a
continuance, denying him the right to participate in
‘‘trial management'' and to oppose a
trial to the court, and finding that the plaintiff had
sustained her burden of proof due to the fact that the record
is inadequate to review the claims and the claims are
inadequately briefed. The defendant's brief consists
primarily of his view of the facts.
is well settled that [we] 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. . . . [F]or this court judiciously
and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal
. . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their
arguments in their briefs. We do not reverse the judgment of
a trial court on the basis of challenges to its rulings that
have not been adequately briefed. . . . The parties may not
merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the
relationship between the facts of the case and the law cited.
. . . [A]ssignments of error which are merely mentioned but
not briefed beyond a statement of the claim will be deemed
abandoned and will not be reviewed by this court.''
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Clelford v.
Bristol, 150 Conn.App. 229, 233, 90 A.3d 998 (2014); see
also Practice Book §§ 61-10 and 67-4.
judgment is affirmed.