State v. Avoletta
| Decision Date | 10 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | AC 43851 |
| Citation | 212 Conn.App. 309,275 A.3d 716 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Matthew AVOLETTA et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Deborah G. Stevenson, assigned counsel, for the appellants (defendants).
Michael K. Skold, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Clare Kindall, solicitor general, for the appellee (plaintiff).
This appeal arises out of a long-standing dispute among the defendants, Joanne Avoletta, Peter Avoletta, and Matthew Avoletta,1 and the plaintiff, the state of Connecticut, concerning the state's alleged failure to provide Peter Avoletta and Matthew Avoletta with a free public education in a safe setting. The defendants appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the state and from the judgment of dismissal of their counterclaim. As to the summary judgment, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the special act authorizing their first claim to proceed before the Claims Commissioner (commissioner) constituted an unconstitutional public emolument in violation of article first, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution, and the General Assembly did not automatically waive the state's sovereign immunity as to the defendants’ second claim by remanding their claim to the commissioner.
As to the dismissal of the counterclaim, the defendants claim that the court erred in determining that their counterclaim was barred by sovereign immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record before the court, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants as the nonmoving party, reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. On May 2, 2007, the defendants filed a claim with the commissioner alleging that the state failed to maintain the Torrington public schools in a safe and sanitary condition (2007 claim). Specifically, the defendants alleged that the middle and high school buildings contained water leaks, bacteria, mold, dampness, and poor indoor air quality, which caused and exacerbated Peter Avoletta's and Matthew Avoletta's respiratory diseases and conditions.2 As a result of the poor building conditions, Joanne Avoletta enrolled Peter Avoletta and Matthew Avoletta in private schools and filed a claim with the commissioner seeking reimbursement from the state for the tuition and costs of their private education. Because the defendants’ claim was not timely filed within the one year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 4-148 (a),3 the commissioner dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The defendants subsequently sought legislative review of the commissioner's decision pursuant to § 4-148 (b).4 In response, the General Assembly passed Substitute House Joint Resolution No. 11-345 (joint resolution), which vacated the commissioner's ruling and authorized the defendants to file a damages claim against the state in the Superior Court. Pursuant to the joint resolution, the defendants commenced an action against the state on May 14, 2012. See Avoletta v. State , Docket No. CV-12-5036221-S, 2013 WL 2350751 (Conn. Super. May 6, 2013) ( Avoletta I ). The state subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. Id., at *1.
The court, Sheridan, J ., granted the state's motion to dismiss on the ground that the joint resolution was an unconstitutional public emolument in violation of article first, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution. Id., at *9. The court found that the defendants’ claim was untimely, noting that the defendants "were clearly aware of the school conditions far more than a year before the May 2, 2007 filing with the ... commissioner." Id., at *7. Accordingly, the court held that allowing the defendants Id., at *9. Thereafter, the defendants appealed to this court. See Avoletta v. State , 152 Conn. App. 177, 98 A.3d 839, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 944, 102 A.3d 1116 (2014) ( Avoletta II ).
In Avoletta II , this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the defendants’ claim was time barred by the one year statute of limitations set forth in § 4-148 (a), and that the joint resolution had failed to identify any compelling equitable circumstances or a public purpose served by permitting the defendants to bring an untimely claim against the state. Id., at 192–95, 98 A.3d 839 ; see also General Statutes § 4-148 (b). Relying on Morneau v. State , 150 Conn. App. 237, 260–62, 90 A.3d 1003, cert. denied, 312 Conn. 926, 95 A.3d 522 (2014), this court determined that the joint resolution granted the defendants an exclusive and private benefit unavailable to the general public. Avoletta II , supra, 152 Conn. App. at 192–95, 98 A.3d 839. The court proceeded to clarify that special legislation passed pursuant to § 4-148 (b), which seeks only to remedy a procedural default, such as failure to comply with a statute of limitations, will be upheld only in situations where the for the procedural default. (Emphasis omitted.) Id., at 194–95, 98 A.3d 839. Accordingly, this court held that the joint resolution was an unconstitutional public emolument. Id., at 195, 98 A.3d 839.
On August 28, 2013, the defendants filed a second claim with the commissioner (2013 claim), seeking relief on two distinct grounds. First, the defendants sought to revive their 2007 claim for damages stemming from unsafe conditions at the Torrington public schools (Torrington schools claim). Second, the defendants alleged that they were harmed by the legislature's "gross negligence" in failing to articulate a public purpose in the joint resolution and neglecting to appropriately follow the statutory procedure to authorize such a claim (legislative negligence claim). The state moved to dismiss both claims, arguing that the defendants’ claims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and legislative immunity. The commissioner granted the state's motion to dismiss on May 1, 2015.
Following the commissioner's order, the defendants again appealed to the General Assembly for legislative review. On June 13, 2017, the General Assembly passed No. 17-4 of the 2017 Special Acts (special act), authorizing the defendants to proceed before the commissioner "for injuries ... alleged to have accrued on September 15, 2006 ...."6 The commissioner subsequently issued a scheduling order requiring that the parties engage in discovery, file dispositive motions, and participate in a hearing on the merits of the defendants’ claims.
On September 15, 2017, the state instituted the present action by filing a declaratory judgment action with the Superior Court, seeking a determination that the special act constituted an unconstitutional public emolument in violation of article first, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution.7 The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds,8 each of which was rejected by the court, Robaina, J. , and the motion was denied. The defendants then filed a motion to strike the complaint, which the court, Dubay, J. , denied.
On May 11, 2018, the state filed a motion for summary judgment. In its accompanying memorandum of law, the state claimed that (1) the special act constituted an unconstitutional public emolument and (2) the defendants were collaterally estopped from arguing that their claims were timely or that there was a legitimate public purpose for permitting their untimely claims to proceed.
The defendants subsequently filed an opposition, in which they distinguished and clarified the claims they had brought before the commissioner. With regard to the Torrington schools claim, the defendants argued that the state was responsible for their failure to comply with the one year statute of limitations set forth in § 4-148 (a). Specifically, the defendants contended that they had detrimentally relied on promises from state actors and, in particular, a directive from the attorney general to the Commissioner of Education to compel the Torrington school district to abide by state law. The defendants also claimed that the special act served a legitimate public purpose, namely to encourage accountability in state government through the full adjudication of cases involving persons who claim to have been injured by the conduct of state actors. As to the legislative negligence claim, the defendants clarified that they were harmed by the legislature's failure to articulate a public purpose in the joint resolution, which caused the dismissal of the 2007 claim, rather than the state's alleged failure to maintain the Torrington schools in a safe condition. They also contended that the legislative negligence claim was timely filed with the commissioner.
On July 27, 2018, the state submitted a reply brief in further support of its motion for summary judgment, wherein it argued, inter alia, that the plain language of the special act only attempted to revive the Torrington schools claim and, therefore, did not authorize the legislative negligence claim to proceed before the commissioner. Accordingly, the state contended that the legislative negligence claim was barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and legislative immunity.
On November 8, 2018, during the pendency of the state's motion for summary judgment, the defendants filed their answer, which included various special defenses and a counterclaim. The counterclaim alleged, inter alia, that the state's conduct in bringing the declaratory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cavanagh v. Richichi
-
Fiorillo v. City of Hartford
... ... The agreement does not state that a specific third party must administer those benefits. Following the settlement, the original plaintiffs were entitled to the medical and ... ...
- State v. Avoletta
-
State v. Avoletta
...K. Skold, deputy solicitor general, in opposition.The defendants’ petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 212 Conn. App. 309, 275 A.3d 716, is granted, limited to the following issue:"Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that No. 17-4 of the 2017 Special Acts i......