Robert CLASBY et al.
Edward ZIMMERMAN et al.
February 4, 2019
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Stamford-Norwalk, Genuario, J.
Lawrence F. Reilly, with whom was James A. Alissi, Hartford,
for the appellant (defendant Bradford Estates, LLC).
B. Noonan, Darien, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Prescott and Elgo, Js.
Conn.App. 146] The defendant, Bradford Estates,
LLC, is a general contracting business
hired by the plaintiffs, Robert Clasby and
Krista Clasby, to raise and remodel their shoreline home,
which was extensively damaged by Hurricane Sandy. The parties
agreed to arbitrate disputes that arose during the
construction project, and the defendant now appeals from the
judgment of the trial court denying its application to
confirm a February 4, 2017 arbitration award. The defendant
contends that the February 4, 2017 award conclusively
established that the defendant was entitled to collect from
the plaintiffs a balance of $51,856.65 in materials and labor
for certain cabinetry work.
defendants claim on appeal is essentially two-fold. First,
he claims that, because no timely application to vacate,
modify or correct the February 4, 2017 award was ever filed,
the court was obligated to grant the defendants application
to confirm the award. Second, the defendant claims that, by
denying its application to confirm the February 4, 2017
award, the court effectively and improperly gave legal effect
to a subsequent award issued by the arbitration panel on
August 23, 2017, in which the arbitration panel clarified
that the February 4, 2017 award was not a final determination
with respect to the cost of the cabinetry work and reduced
the amount that the defendant was entitled to collect for the
cabinetry work by more than $20,000.
Conn.App. 147] We agree with the defendant that the trial
court "had no choice" but to grant the defendants
timely application to confirm the award because neither party
filed a timely application to vacate, modify or correct the
February 4, 2017 arbitration award. See Rosenthal Law
Firm, LLC v. Cohen, 165 Conn.App. 467, 472, 139 A.3d
774, cert. denied, 322 Conn. 904, 138 A.3d 933 (2016).
Nevertheless, we do not agree with the remaining aspect of
the defendants claim that confirmation of the February 4,
2017 award necessarily invalidates or renders legally
inoperative the arbitration panels August 23, 2017 award,
particularly with respect to its modification of the balance
owed to the defendant for the cabinetry work. In other words,
we conclude that the trial court properly denied the
defendants request for an order directing the plaintiffs to
pay the defendant an additional $21,463 for cabinetry
work. For the reasons that follow, we affirm
in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court,
and remand the matter with direction to grant the application
to confirm the February 4, 2017 award, but to deny the
remainder of the relief requested in the application.
record reveals the following facts, as found by the
arbitration panel or as undisputed in the
record. [191 Conn.App. 148] The plaintiffs
hired the defendant to renovate and remodel their shoreline
home in Darien, which had suffered significant damage from
Hurricane Sandy. The project included raising the home above
the existing foundation and redesigning and strengthening the
foundation to comply with new regulations. The relationship
between the parties, however, soon
deteriorated. The plaintiffs became dissatisfied
with many aspects of the project, including the cost,
quality, and progress of the renovations. The defendant
eventually withdrew from the project after it was halfway
plaintiffs commenced a civil action against the defendant in
January, 2014. In their operative complaint, the plaintiffs
alleged causes of action sounding in breach of contract, a
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., fraud, conversion, breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
negligence. The plaintiffs also sought to pierce the
corporate veil between the ...