September 19, 2019
to recover damages for, inter alia, the defendants'
alleged negligence, and for other relief, brought to the
Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain, where
the action was withdrawn as to the defendant Michael
Moriarty; thereafter, White & Katzman Property Services
was cited in as a defendant; subsequently, the mater was
tried to the court, Hon. Joseph M. Shortall, judge
trial referee; thereafter, the court granted in part the
motion to dismiss filed by the named defendant et al.;
subsequently, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff,
from which the named defendant et al. appealed to this court.
M. Varunes, with whom was Christopher S. Young, for the
appellants (named defendant et al.).
DiPentima, C. J., and Keller and Sheldon, Js.
plaintiff, Alireza Jamalipour, brought the underlying
negligence action against the defendants Fairway's Edge
Association, Inc. (association), and White & Katzman
Property Services (property man-ager) seeking economic damages
that he alleged to have been caused by faulty repairs to a
deck attached to his condominium unit. The defendants
appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in the
plaintiff's favor in the amount of $31, 900. The
defendants claim that (1) the evidence did not support the
court's 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 Fairway's
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 plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's
deck by the contractor in 2011, under the supervision of the
defendants, were deficient in several ways and that the
contractor's negligence and the negligence of the
defendants in subsequently failing to correct the results of
the contractor's work proximately caused damage to the
deck and to certain interior spaces of the plaintiff's
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
court's award of damages and that the court's 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.
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 prevent water spillage and rental of dumpsters.
It does not include the replacement of flashing . . .
defendants acknowledge that we review challenges to the trial
court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous
standard of review. ‘‘A finding of fact is
clearly erroneous [if] there is no evidence in the record to
support it . . . or [if] although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Lussier v. Spinnato, 69 Conn.App. 136, 141, 794 A.2d
1008, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 910, 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
carefully reviewed the evidence presented at trial. The
evidence and the rational inferences to be drawn therefrom
provide a factual basis for the court's award of damages,
and we are not left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been made. In particular, we observe that
the testimony presented by the plaintiff from David Balali, a
licensed home improvement contractor who estimated the cost