Byrne v. Grasso
fullCitation | Byrne v. Grasso, 985 A.2d 1064, 118 Conn.App. 444 (Conn. App. 2009) |
Decision Date | 15 December 2009 |
Citation | 985 A.2d 1064,118 Conn.App. 444 |
Docket Number | No. 30275.,30275. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Nicholas J. BYRNE, Jr. v. John H. GRASSO. |
James R. Fiore, with whom, on the brief, was Anthony Nuzzo, Jr., Cheshire, for the appellee (defendant).
FLYNN, C.J., and DiPENTIMA and WEST, Js.
The plaintiff, Nicholas J. Byrne, Jr., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, John H. Grasso, an attorney, in this legal malpractice action. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment after concluding that his preclusion from calling expert witnesses to support his cause of action for legal malpractice rendered such claim legally insufficient as a matter of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The plaintiff brought this claim of legal malpractice against the defendant, his former attorney, for the alleged inadequate representation of his interests in a probate matter. As explained by the trial court:
On April 28, 2006, the plaintiff commenced this legal malpractice action against the defendant, alleging that the defendant had provided inadequate representation of the plaintiff's interests during the probate proceedings. On April 9, 2008, the defendant filed a motion to preclude expert testimony on the basis of the plaintiff's failure to disclose any experts in accordance with Practice Book (2008) § 13-4(4). The court granted the motion on May 5, 2008. On May 27, 2008, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff could not prove his claim of legal malpractice without the precluded expert testimony. Agreeing, the court granted the motion and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. This appeal followed.
Initially, we set forth the applicable standard of review for appeals from the entry of summary judgment. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Zulick v. Patrons Mutual Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 367, 372, 949 A.2d 1084 (2008). Furthermore, "[t]he determination of whether expert testimony is needed to support a claim of legal malpractice presents a question of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Moore v. Crone, 114 Conn.App. 443, 446, 970 A.2d 757 (2009).
The plaintiff claims that there was no need for expert testimony in this case, arguing that his allegations of malpractice "implicate conduct which is such a gross departure from an attorney's standard of care that the neglect would be [obvious] to even a layperson." Therefore, he argues, this is the type of case for which expert testimony is unnecessary. The defendant argues that the court properly rendered judgment in his favor because the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice without the introduction of expert testimony to prove a breach of the standard of care and that such breach proximately caused the alleged damage to the plaintiff. We agree with the defendant.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lee v. Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C., 116 Conn.App. 289, 297, 975 A.2d 715 (2009).
To prevail on a legal malpractice claim, "a plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the standard of proper professional skill or care . . . [and to] establish that the defendant's conduct legally caused the injury of which [the plaintiff] complain[s]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Moore v. Crone, supra, 114 Conn.App. at 446, 970 A.2d 757. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grimm v. Fox
...to notice portion of trial transcript was missing, and failed to adequately brief issues on appeal ); see also Byrne v. Grasso, 118 Conn.App. 444, 450, 985 A.2d 1064 (2009) (attorney failed to appear at hearing at which award of fees was made against client and failed to explain right to ap......
-
Bozelko v. Papastavros
...See, e.g., Law Offices of Robert K. Walsh, LLC v. Natarajan , 124 Conn.App. 860, 863–64, 7 A.3d 391 (2010) ; Byrne v. Grasso , 118 Conn.App. 444, 451–52, 985 A.2d 1064 (2009), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 934, 987 A.2d 1028 (2010) ; Vona v. Lerner , 72 Conn.App. 179, 189, 804 A.2d 1018 (2002), c......
-
Tatum v. Oberg
...A.2d 489 (1990). Expert testimony is also required to prove that a breach has actually injured the plaintiff. See Byrne v. Grasso, 118 Conn.App. 444, 451, 985 A.2d 1064 (2009); Beecher v. Greaves, 73 Conn.App. 561, 564, 808 A.2d 1143 (2002). “Not only must the plaintiffs establish the stand......
-
Costello & McCormack, P.C. v. Manero
...205 (2012) ; Law Offices of Robert K. Walsh, LLC v. Natarajan , 124 Conn. App. 860, 863–64, 7 A.3d 391 (2010) ; Byrne v. Grasso , 118 Conn. App. 444, 448, 985 A.2d 1064 (2009), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 934, 987 A.2d 1028 (2010) ; Moore v. Crone , supra, 114 Conn. App. at 447, 970 A.2d 757 ; ......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...Burke, No. X03CV065009290S, 2007 WL 2741372 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007) 9-8 Byrne v. Burke, 112 Conn. App. 262 (2009) 9-8 Byrne v. Grasso, 118 Conn. App. 444 (2009), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 934, 987 (2010) 8-2:2.1 Bysiewicz v. Dinardo, 298 Conn. 748 (2010) 6-1 Cacace v. Lucas, 775 F. Supp. 502 ......
-
CHAPTER 8 - 8-2 NEGLIGENCE
...to notice that a portion of trial transcript was missing, and failed to adequately brief issues on appeal); see also Byrne v. Grasso, 118 Conn. App. 444, 450 (2009) (attorney failed to appear at hearing at which an award of fees was made against client and failed to explain the right to app......
-
Tort Developments in 2009
...is required in a legal malpractice suit is a question of law. Id. at 446. 143. Id. at 445-47. 144. Id. at 447-48. 145. Id. at 448. 146. 118 Conn. App. 444, 985 A.2d 1064 (2009), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 934, A.2d (2010). 147. Id. at 447. 148. Id. at 450. 149. 116 Conn. App. 289, 290-91,975 A......