September 19, 2019
from Superior Court, Joseph M. Shortall, J.
M. Varunes, with whom was Christopher S. Young, for the
appellants (named defendant et al.).
C. J., and Keller and Sheldon, Js.
Conn.App. 225] The plaintiff, Alireza Jamalipour, brought the
underlying negligence action against the defendants Fairways
Edge Association, Inc. (association), and White & Katzman
Property Services (property manager) seeking economic
damages that he alleged to have been caused by faulty repairs
to a deck attached [194 Conn.App. 226] to his condominium
unit. The defendants appeal from the
judgment rendered by the trial court in the plaintiffs favor
in the amount of $31,900. The defendants claim that (1) the
evidence did not support the courts award of damages and
that the award will unjustly enrich the
plaintiff and (2) the court
erred in failing to consider relevant association bylaws and
the Common Interest Ownership Act (act), General Statutes §
47-200 et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
a trial to the court on November 30, 2016, and March 29,
2017, the court found in relevant part that, in 2009, the
plaintiff purchased a condominium unit in the Fairways Edge
condominium community. In December, 2009, the association,
which managed the affairs of the condominium community at
that time, hired a contractor to repair or replace
decks throughout the community, directed the contractor to
perform work on the plaintiffs deck, and notified the
plaintiff of the work to be performed. The property manager
took over the management of the community before the
contractor performed the repairs at issue in 2011.
court determined that the repairs made to the plaintiffs
deck by the contractor in 2011, under the [194 Conn.App. 227]
supervision of the defendants, were deficient in several ways
and that the contractors negligence and the negligence of
the defendants in subsequently failing to correct the results
of the contractors work proximately caused damage to the
deck and to certain interior spaces of the plaintiffs
adjoining residential unit. By the time of trial, the deck
and the unit were in a state of disrepair requiring
remediation. As against both defendants, the court awarded
the plaintiff $31,900 in damages to undertake necessary
repairs. This appeal followed.
the defendants claim that the evidence did not support the
courts award of damages and that the courts award will
unjustly enrich the plaintiff. Essentially, the defendants
argue that the evidence demonstrated that the cost to
demolish and replace the deck was far less than $31,900. We
respect to its damage award, the court stated: "This
includes demolition and replacement of the entire deck,
replacement of the ledger board that connects the deck to the
house, the services of electricians needed to disconnect
electrical service while work on the deck is done and
reconnect service when work is completed, connection of a
down spout to ...