Scaramuzzo v. Nader
| Decision Date | 27 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | CV186014780S |
| Court | Superior Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | Nicola Scaramuzzo et al. v. Saleh Nader et al. fka Nutmeg Properties, LLC |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Sizemore, Nada K., J.
This matter comes before this court at short calendar on November 4, 2019, on the Plaintiffs Nicola and Vicki Scaramuzzo’s Motion for Summary Judgment dated July 30, 2019 (Entry #133) and the related Objection filed by the defense at (Entry #145).
After a careful review and consideration of the arguments, briefs and supporting documentation of the parties, this court DENIES the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, on the ground that there are too many genuine issues of material fact so as to conclude that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court therefore SUSTAINS the Defendant Silver & Oak Realty’s objection to the Motion and SUSTAINS Defendant Saleh’s Objection to the Motion as well.
The court bases its decision on the following.
This action, filed by plaintiffs Nicola Scaramuzzo and Vicki Scaramuzzo, arises out of the June 14, 2016 purchase and sale of residential real property located at 456 Kensington Avenue in Meriden, Connecticut from the defendant Nader Saleh. Plaintiffs claim that the property was sold to them based on the representation that it was hooked to public sewer systems in Meriden, but after purchase, they learned it was not. They have now brought suit against the seller Defendant Saleh and against the real estate brokerage company that represented him, Defendant Silver and Oak Realty CT, LLC (formerly known as Nutmeg Properties, LLC) [hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Silver & Oak Realty"]. As part of their claim, Plaintiffs allege that they were denied the opportunity to inspect the existing and failing septic system as a direct result of the defendants’ misrepresentations. They claim the property had been listed by the Defendant Silver and Oak Realty and advertised as being connected to public sewer; and the defendant seller’s Residential Property Condition Disclosure represented the same.
By Amended Complaint dated October 3, 2018, the plaintiffs bring suit via an eight-count complaint against the Seller Saleh and the Defendant Silver and Oak Realty. Specifically the plaintiffs assert several theories of liability against the two named defendants. The first five counts are addressed to the defendant Seller Saleh; and the remaining three counts are directed to the Defendant Silver & Oak Realty.
In the First Count against Defendant Saleh, they allege a claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation, based on the allegation that the Defendant Saleh knew that the property was not connected to the public sewer and falsely represented it was connected, thereby inducing them to purchase the property. In the Second Count against Defendant Saleh, they claim negligent misrepresentation based on the same facts and in the Third Count against Saleh, they allege a theory of innocent misrepresentation.
Plaintiffs in the Fourth Count against the Defendant Saleh claim breach of good faith and fair dealing based on the written contract entered with the plaintiffs for purchase of the real estate. In the Fifth Count, they assert a claim under Connecticut General Statute Section 20-327b claiming that defendant Saleh’s failure to disclose the type of sewage disposal system was a nondisclosure of a material fact in violation of that statutory section.
In the Sixth Count against the Defendant Silver & Oak Realty Plaintiffs claim it violated Section 20-320(1) and Section 20-328-5a of the Connecticut State Regulations by failing to exercise due diligence in obtaining and presenting accurate information about the subject property during the real property transaction. Last, in the Seventh and Eighth Counts of the complaint as to Defendant Silver & Oak, plaintiffs allege causes of action in negligent and innocent misrepresentation based on the defendant realtor’s misrepresentation that the property was connected to the public sewer system.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs claim to have suffered financial harm, and now seek compensatory damages from both defendants including actual and consequential damages and costs, interest, expenses and reasonable attorneys fees.
By Amended Answer and Special Defenses dated July 31, 2019, the Defendant Silver & Oak Realty has denied the claims against it, and has raised three special defense. In the First Special Defense, it asserts a claim of plaintiffs’ comparative negligence on the following grounds: (1) they failed to perform an inspection of the property’s sewage disposal system; and (2) they failed to conduct a property inquiry regarding the property’s sewage disposal system. Defendant Silver Oak Realty claims in its second special defense that plaintiff’s alleged damages were caused by intervening and superseding acts of omissions of others; and last in the Third Special Defense, it claims all claims are time barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitations including C.G.S. Section 52-584.
The Defendant Saleh, through Amended Answer and Special Defenses dated August 19, 2019, also generally denies the claims against him, and raises similar three special defenses and adds one specific special defense related to him only. In those special defenses, he claims the following: First Special Defense- comparative negligence of the plaintiffs per C.G.S. Section 52-572h; Second Special Defense- intervening superseding acts or omissions of parties other than the defendant caused the alleged damages; Third Special Defense- statute of limitations barring the plaintiffs’ claims per C.G.S. Section 52-584; and in the Fourth Special Defense- Defendant Saleh claim that plaintiffs executed an Accord and General Release in his favor and thus, the claims against him should be barred.
The plaintiffs replied to all special defenses by Replies dated August 29, 2019 to all special defenses raised by the defendants; so pleading are now closed.
By Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated July 30, 2019, per Connecticut Practice Book Section 17-34 et seq., the plaintiffs move for judgment as to the Third, Sixth and Eighth Counts of the complaint. The Third Count is directed to Defendant Saleh; and the Sixth and Eighth counts are directed to Defendant Silver and Oak. The parties presented for oral argument at short calendar on November 4, 2019.
In support of their Motion, the plaintiffs filed the following fifteen (15) exhibits, Exhibits A through M in support of their motion: (A) Defendant Silver & Oak Realty Responses to Request for Admission dated April 29, 2019; (B) Defendant Saleh Response to Requests for Admission dated May 15, 2019; (C) Defendant Silver and Oak Realty Response to Request for Admission dated June 12, 2019; (D) Defendant Saleh’s Responses to Request for Admission dated May 15, 2019); (E) City of Meriden Water Pollution Dye Test Report dated May 7, 2019; (F) Defendant Silver and Oak Answers to plaintiffs’ interrogatories dated June 25, 2009; (G) MLS Listing 610112716; (H) MLS Listing G10032473; (I) Listing Agreement for 465 Kensington Avenue, Meriden, Connecticut; (J) City of Meriden Field Assessor Card dated July 1, 2019; (K) Roto-Rooter billing statement dated June 23, 2016; (L) Plaintiffs’ Affidavits dated July 1, 2019; (M) Cost estimate to connect property to Meriden sewer. In addition, plaintiffs have offered the purchase and sale contract between plaintiffs and Defendant Saleh; and offered the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Report dated February 29, 2016.
By Objection dated September 12, 2019, the defendant Silver & Oak objects to the motion for summary judgment arguing that the claims in those counts are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation; and arguing that there are disputed questions of fact on numerous material issues barring summary disposition.
Defendant Saleh, who is self-represented in this matter, also objected orally to this motion for summary judgment on similar grounds.
The parties presented for oral argument on November 4, 2019 at short calendar. All parties have provided several memorandum of law in support and in reply to each other’s respective positions in this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Graham v. Commissioner of Transportation, 330 Conn. 400, 414-15, 195 A.3d 664 (2018). "The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law ... and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact ... A material fact ... [is] a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. West Hartford, 328 Conn. 172, 191-92, 177 A.3d 1128 (2018).
"Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when pleadings affidavits, and any other proof submitted show that there is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial