M.B. v. S.A.

         Argued October 10, 2019

         The Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Tindill, J.

Page 560

          M. B., self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

         DiPentima, C. J., and Lavine and Bishop, Js.

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

Page 561

          [194 Conn.App. 722] The self-represented plaintiff, M. B., appeals from the trial court’s order denying his application for relief from abuse seeking the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order against the defendant, S. A., who he alleges has engaged in a "continuous pattern of stalking and harassment." Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the court abused its discretion in (1) denying his application for relief from abuse and (2) issuing sanctions against him pursuant to Practice Book § 1-25 for filing a frivolous application for relief from abuse. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

          The following facts, as evidenced by the record, and procedural history are relevant to our consideration of this appeal. On August 3, 2018, the plaintiff filed, pursuant to § 46b-15, an application for relief from abuse seeking a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The plaintiff alleged in the application for relief from abuse that the defendant engaged in a "clear and continuous pattern of stalking and harassment" that included incidents of her secretly photographing the plaintiff in public, and hiring a third party to surveil the plaintiff at his apartment in Greenwich. The court, Tindill, J., thereafter set a hearing date for August 17, 2018. That hearing resumed on September 10, 2018, and concluded on September 11, 2018.

         At the hearing, both the defendant and the self-represented plaintiff appeared, testified, and submitted evidence on the issue of the plaintiff’s application for relief from abuse. The court, Tindill, J., subsequently denied the plaintiff’s application for relief from abuse and, pursuant to Practice Book § 1-25, issued sanctions against him for filing a frivolous General Statutes § 46b-15 application. [194 Conn.App. 723] ^[1] Accordingly, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees incurred in defending against the application. This appeal followed.^[2] Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

         Though the plaintiff has presented ten issues on appeal,^[3] the substance of his

Page 562

claims is encapsulated within two broader claims. The plaintiff asks this court to consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in (1) denying his application for relief from abuse on [194 Conn.App. 724] the basis of the evidence presented at trial and (2) issuing sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees against him for filing a frivolous § 46b-15 application. Following our review of the ...