Alvarez v. Building and Land Technology Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 February 2018
• Docket Number: FSTCV136017699S
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Rolando ALVAREZ v. BUILDING AND LAND TECHNOLOGY CORP., et al.

Rolando ALVAREZ v. BUILDING AND LAND TECHNOLOGY CORP., et al.

No. FSTCV136017699S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Stamford

February 7, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

OPINION

Hon Kevin Tierney, J.T.R.

This is an action for money damages filed by Rolando Alvarez against five named defendants for injuries that he sustained on April 29, 2011 when he was assaulted and stabbed after leaving work while walking to the Stamford, Connecticut train station. Three of the defendants, Jhony Illisaca aka Jhonny Illisaca Jose Reyes and Boris Escudero, were the alleged assailants. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (Securitas) provided security services for the " real property known as 101 Park Place located at 101 Washington Boulevard, Stamford Connecticut" in front of which the plaintiff was assaulted. Securitas was a defendant from the commencement of this litigation until October 27, 2017, when the plaintiff filed a withdrawal as against Securitas. (# 222.00.) The defendant, Building and Land Technology Corp., is alleged to be the owner of said real property upon which the alleged assaults occurred on April 29, 2011. (Count One, paragraph 1.)

The operative complaint is the original complaint dated March 13 2013. It is in five counts, one against each of the above named defendants. Counts Three, Four and Five allege the tort of assault and battery against each of the three named individual defendants. Counts One and Two allege negligence against Building and Land Technology Corp. and Securitas. These two entities have been represented by counsel who have actively litigated their defense.

This lawsuit, returnable on April 23, 2013 is scheduled for a jury trial to commence on March 6, 2018. Previous jury trial dates of November 12, 2014, September 15, 2015, February 15, 2017 and August 8, 2017 were postponed by court order.

The defendant, Securitas, filed its own Motion for Summary Judgment on April 13, 2017 (# 167.00). This lawsuit was assigned for a short calendar hearing before the undersigned on both Motions for Summary Judgment, (# 167.00 and # 168.00). On June 27, 2017 the court modified the Scheduling Order so that further discovery could be completed. (# 198.00.) That June 27, 2017 Scheduling Order assigned the aforesaid jury trial date of March 6, 2018 and scheduled the two summary judgments for short calendar argument on October 30, 2017. (# 198.00.) On the Friday before Monday, October 30, 2017 the plaintiff withdrew its negligence count, Count Two, against Securitas (# 222.00). Neither of the three individual defendants appeared in court at the first short calendar argument and upon information and belief all three are currently incarcerated. Two out of the three individual defendants are represented by an attorney of record and those attorneys did not appear at the October 30, 2017 short calendar argument. The court commenced argument on October 30, 2017 on the aforementioned Motion for Summary Judgment (# 168.00) filed by Building and Land Technology Corp. but was unable to complete the argument because of difficulties by the court with accessing an April 29, 2011 DVD video and the need for the plaintiff to file a further memorandum of law. " Video" and " DVD video" will be used interchangeably to identify the only video before this court, the April 29, 2011 video. In order to accomplish those tasks, the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment was continued and heard by this court on December 19, 2017. One attorney for an individual defendant appeared at the December 19, 2017 continued argument on this Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial date of March 6, 2018 remained the assigned jury trial date.

This court has applied all the requisite standards for decisions by trial courts in motions for summary judgment without the need to restate those standards in this memorandum of decision. Covello v. Darien, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket Number FST CV 08-5008909 S (October 22, 2010, Tierney, J.T.R.) ; Forrest v. Sothebys International Realty, Inc. et al., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket Number FST CV 11-6010200 S (January 9, 2013, Tierney, J.T.R.); Samakaab v. Department of Social Services, 178 Conn.App. 52, 56-57 (2017); Squeo v. Norwalk Hospital Association, 316 Conn. 558, 593-95 (2015).

The parties claim that the following pleadings are applicable to the issues before this court: the March 13, 2013 original complaint, which is the operative complaint; the May 1, 2015 Amended Answer & Special Defenses filed by Building and Land Technology Corp. (# 154.00), which is the operative Answer and Special Defense filed by that defendant; the defendant’s aforesaid April 13, 2017 Motion for Summary Judgment (# 168.00), which contains within its 117 pages a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and certain attached exhibits; the April 13, 2017 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, Securitas (# 167.00), which contains within its 258 pages a Memorandum of Law and the hard copy of the April 29, 2011 DVD video; Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment dated June 7, 2017 (# 187.00) together with exhibits for a total of 389 pages; the October 16, 2017 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 208.00) along with seven attached Exhibits A-G each dated October 16, 2017 (# 209.00, # 210.00, # 211.00, # 212.00, # 213.00, # 214.00 and # 215.00); Defendant’s Reply to Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment dated October 23, 2017 (# 219.00) along with two attached Exhibits both dated October 24, 2017 filed by Building and Land Technology Corp. (# 220.00 and # 221.00); and Supplemental Reply Memorandum dated December 11, 2017 filed by Building and Land Technology Corp. pursuant to this court’s October 31, 2017 order permitting the same to be filed (# 216.01); a large Exhibit (# 229.00), being a survey map filed previously (# 209.00, Exhibit A), and Plaintiff’s Surreply to Building and Land Technology’s Supplemental Reply to the Plaintiff’s Objection to Summary Judgment dated December 13, 2017 (# 234.00). In addition to the above Exhibits the court viewed the approximate ten-minute April 29, 2011 DVD video. See VIDEO SURVEILLANCE attached to Memorandum (# 167.00 page 33 of 258 pages). In addition the court has considered the oral arguments of both counsel at the two court hearings on the Motion for Summary Judgment (# 168.00) as well as the attorney David Fite Waters October 9, 2017 deposition (# 223.00, Exhibit B, pages 26-82 in pleading # 223.00).

" The essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established: duty; breach of that duty; causation; and actual injury." Murdock v. Croughwell, 268 Conn. 559, 566 (2004). The two issues before this court addressed in the first count of negligence against Building and Land Technology Corp are duty and proximate cause. " Duty is a legal conclusion about relationships between individuals, made after the fact, and is imperative to a negligence cause of action ... Thus, there can be no actionable negligence unless there is a cognizable duty of care ... The test for existence of a legal duty of care entails (1) a determination of whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew or should have known, would anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result, and (2) a determination, on the basis of a public policy analysis, of whether the defendant’s responsibility for its negligent conduct should extend to the particular consequences or particular plaintiff in the case." Id., 566.

" To prevail on the negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct legally caused the injuries ... The first component of legal cause is causation in fact. Causation in fact is the purest legal application of ... legal cause. The test for cause in fact is, simply, would the injury have occurred were it not for the actor’s conduct ... The second component of legal cause is proximate cause ... The test of proximate is whether the defendant’s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injuries ... Further, it is the plaintiff who bears the burden to prove an unbroken sequence of events that tied his injuries to the defendant’s conduct ... The existence of the proximate cause of an injury is determined by looking from the injury to the negligent act complained of for the necessary causal connection ... This causal connection must be based upon more than conjecture and surmise." Winn v. Posades, 281 Conn. 50, 56-57 (2007); Paige v. Saint Andrew’s Roman Catholic Church Corporation, 250 Conn. 14, 24-26 (1999).

Turning to the operative complaint Count One as to the defendant Building and Land Technology Corp., the plaintiff has alleged it was the owner of property known as 101 Park Place located at 101 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, Connecticut. The plaintiff has alleged in paragraph 25 that Building and Land Technology Corp. was negligent in seven separate subparagraphs each with a claim of negligence; Failed to provide greater security services than already had been provided by its contract with Securitas, paragraph 25.a; That there were certain guidelines and requirements that had been formulated by Building and Land Technology Corp. and it failed to follow its own guidelines and requirements, paragraph 25.b; It knew that the degree of security services that it contracted with Securitas was inadequate for the degree and extent of security needed in that neighborhood and for the conditions then and there existing,...