September 12, 2018
to recover damages for the defendants' alleged
professional negligence, brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of Fairfield, where the court, Kamp,
J., granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the
plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Reynolds Gordon, with whom was Frank A. DeNi-cola, Jr., for
the appellant (plaintiff).
Cohane, with whom were Luke R. Conrad and Julia O'Brien,
general counsel, for the appellees (defendants).
Lavine, Sheldon and Bright, Js.
plaintiff, Brandon Smith, appeals from the summary judgment
rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, BL
Companies, Inc. (company), and James Fielding, on the ground
of res judicata. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the
trial court erred as a matter of law by concluding that a
prior judgment on a nuisance claim precluded the plaintiff
from bringing a subsequent negligence claim that was
predicated on the same nucleus of fact but not pleaded in the
previous action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
following facts and procedural history underlie the appeal to
this court. The town of Redding (town) hired the company to
survey, design, engineer, inspect, and supervise the
‘‘Streetscape Project, '' which included
the construction of a block retaining wall. On September 17,
2011, at approximately 2 a.m., the plaintiff fell off the
retaining wall onto a driveway approximately six feet below,
sustaining multiple injuries.
plaintiff first brought an action against the town, its
contractor, M. Rondano, Inc., and the company, alleging that
the retaining wall constituted an absolute and public
nuisance because it was not fenced off and no warning was
provided. On December 5, 2014, the court, Radcliffe,
J., rendered summary judgment in favor of the company on
the ground that the pleadings and exhibits did not support
the claim that the company had control of the property on
which the retaining wall was constructed. The plaintiff
appealed from the judgment of the trial court, but then
withdrew his appeal.
the plaintiff brought this second action against the
defendants, alleging negligence. On April 3, 2017, the trial
court, Kamp, J., granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment on the ground that the negligence claim
was barred by res judicata in light of the previous judgment
on the merits of the nuisance cause of action. The plaintiff
appeals from the rendering of summary judgment in the
claims raised by the plaintiff in this court are essentially
the same claims he raised in the trial court when he opposed
the motion for summary judgment. We have examined the record
on appeal, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and
conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be
affirmed. Because Judge Kamp's memorandum of decision
thoroughly addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we
adopt that court's well reasoned decision as a proper
statement of the facts and applicable law on the issues.
Smith v. BL Cos., Superior Court, judicial
district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-16-6055532 (April 3,
2017) (reprinted at185 Conn.App., A.3d). It would serve no
useful purpose for this court to engage in any further
discussion. See, e.g., Woodruff v.
Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010);
Samakaab v. Dept. of Social Services, 178
Conn.App. 52, 54, 173 A.3d 1004 (2017).
judgment is affirmed.