December 20, 2018
to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty,
and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of Waterbury, where the named defendant et
al. filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the action was
withdrawn as against the defendant Judah Liberman;
subsequently, the defendant 58 North Walnut, LLC, et al. were
defaulted for failure to appear; thereafter, the named
defendant et al. were defaulted for failure to appear at a
trial management conference; subsequently, following a
hearing in damages, the court, Brazzel-Massaro,
J., rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the
named defendant etal. appealed to the Appellate Court,
DiPentima, C. J., and Sheldon and
Mihalakos, Js., which reversed in part the
trial court's judgment and vacated the award of punitive
damages, and the named defendant et al., on the granting of
certification, appealed to this court. Appeal
M. Wisser, with whom, on the brief, was Sarah Black
Lingenheld, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).
TarynD.Martin, with whom, onthe brief, was Robert A. Ziegler,
for the appellee (plaintiff).
Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins,
Kahn and Ecker, Js. [*]
plaintiff, Malkie Wiederman, commenced this action arising
out of a real estate investment agreement with the defendants
Issac Halpert and Marsha Halpert,  seeking, inter alia, to
recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
conversion, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et
seq. After the trial court rendered a judgment of default
against the defendants for failing to appear at a trial
management conference, it held a hearing to determine
damages. On the basis of the evidence presented by the
plaintiff at that hearing, at which the defendants also
failed to appear, the trial court awarded the plaintiff $600,
892.58 in compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's
fees and costs. Thereafter, the defendants moved to open the
judgment rendered against them and to enjoin the plaintiff
from enforcing it. The trial court, noting both that the
defendants received multiple notices to new and old addresses
and that Issac Halpert failed to appear and to testify at the
hearing on damages despite being personally served by
subpoena, denied their motion. The defendants then appealed
from the trial court's denial of their motion to open,
claiming, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims because
the alleged injuries sustained by her were derivative of the
harm suffered by the limited liability companies of which she
and the defendants were members, and, as such, the plaintiff
lacked standing to recover directly. See Wiederman
v. Halpert, 178 Conn.App. 783, 793, 176 A.3d
1242 (2017). The Appellate Court rejected the defendants'
claim, concluding that, because the plaintiff sufficiently
alleged an injury that was separate and distinct from that
suffered by the limited liability companies-as she alleged,
among other things, that the defendants forged her signature
on certain financial documentsthe trial court had properly
exercised subject matter jurisdiction over her direct claims.
See id., 797-98. We granted the defendants' petition for
certification to appeal, limited to the following issue:
‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the
determination of the trial court that the plaintiff had
standing to sue?'' Wiederman v.
Halpert, 328 Conn. 906, 177 A.3d 1161 (2018).
examining the entire record on appeal and considering the
briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined
that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the
ground that certification was improvidently granted.
appeal is dismissed.
This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a
panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and
Justices Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and
Ecker. Although Justice Palmer was not present when the case
was argued before the court, he has read the briefs and
appendices, and listened to a recording of oral argument
prior to participating in this decision.
 The operative complaint also named
several other defendants; they are not parties to this
appeal. See Wiederman v. Halpert, 178
Conn.App. 783, 785 n.1, 176 A.3d 1242 (2017). All references
herein to the defendants ...