December 6, 2016
from Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury,
S. DiBartolomeo, filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).
J. Foster, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph A. Mengacci,
for the appellees (defendants).
DiPentima, C. J., and Prescott and Alander, Js.
plaintiff, Solomon Lamar, appeals from the summary judgment
rendered in favor of the defendants, Francis Brevetti,
Michael Guglioti, Vernon Riddick, Jr., Fernando Spagnolo,
David Janetty (individual defendants) and the city of
Waterbury (city). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the
court improperly rendered summary judgment with respect to
(1) his negligence and recklessness claims against the
individual defendants, (2) his negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims against Brevetti and
(3) his claims against the city pursuant to General Statutes
§§ 7-465 and 7-101a. We affirm the judgment of the
complaint filed on August 19, 2010, the plaintiff alleged
twenty-four counts against the six defendants.The genesis of
this action was the arrest of the plaintiff by Brevetti, a
Waterbury police officer, on July 31, 2008. The other
individual defendants were high ranking members of the
Waterbury Police Department. On August 31, 2010, the
defendants removed the action to United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut (District Court). On
September 26, 2012, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to
the plaintiff's claims of civil rights violations, false
arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.
decision, the District Court set forth the following facts.
On July 31, 2008, Brevetti responded to a report of a
disturbance. Lamar v. Waterbury, Docket No.
3:10CV1390 (RNC), 2012 WL 4481677, *1 (D. Conn. September 26,
2012). Accompanied by police officer Michael Modeen, Brevetti
interviewed the two complainants, Hector Ramos and Jessie
Stein, who stated that the plaintiff had been yelling
obscenities and making threats. Id. Ramos and Stein
directed the officers to the home of the plaintiff, who
answered the door in a state of undress and appeared nervous.
Id. During the officers' questioning, the
plaintiff admitted to having a dispute with his neighbors.
Id. Brevetti placed the plaintiff under arrest for
breach of peace. Id. The plaintiff indicated that he
needed to get a pair of pants, and walked up the stairs.
Id. The officers followed him to the top of the
stairs, where they placed him in handcuffs. Id. At
that point, the officers observed, in plain view,
‘‘a clear plastic bag containing a white
rock-like substance [later determined to be crack cocaine],
together with a small scale and a box of sandwich
bags.'' Id. The plaintiff was charged with
breach of peace in the second degree and various narcotics
result of this arrest, the Superior Court conducted a hearing
on May 13, 2009, on whether the plaintiff had violated a
conditional discharge he had received as a part of his
sentence on a prior conviction. Id., *2. The court,
Fasano, J., determined that the plaintiff, by virtue
of this new arrest, had violated his conditional discharge,
notwithstanding some discrepancy between Ramos' testimony
and the police report completed by Brevetti. Id.
Judge Fasano opened the judgment and sentenced the plaintiff
to three and one-half years incarceration. Id.
September 24, 2009, Brevetti was arrested after narcotics
were found in his vehicle. Id. He subsequently
pleaded guilty to tampering with evidence and possession of a
controlled substance. Id.
state elected not to prosecute the plaintiff for the charges
stemming from the July 31, 2008 incident. Id.
Following the plaintiff's release from custody on March
26, 2010, he commenced the present action. Id.
defendants moved for summary judgment in the District Court.
In ruling on that motion, the District Court determined that
‘‘[i]n this case, uncontested facts establish
that the plaintiff's arrest [for breach of peace and the
narcotics charges] was supported by probable cause. . . .
Because probable cause existed for the plaintiff's
arrest, the plaintiff cannot prevail on his claims under [42
U.S.C.] § 1983 and state law for false arrest, false
imprisonment and malicious prosecution as a matter of law
and, accordingly, the defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on these claims.'' Id., *3. The
District Court then declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remanded
the case to the Superior Court. Id.
January 27, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment in the Superior Court as to the plaintiff's
remaining claims. The plaintiff filed his objection on July
24, 2014. The court, Roraback, J., held a hearing
and subsequently issued a memorandum of decision ...