Ulanoff v. Becker Salon, LLC
| Decision Date | 28 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | AC 42834 |
| Citation | 262 A.3d 863,208 Conn.App. 1 |
| Parties | Andrea ULANOFF v. BECKER SALON, LLC, et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Igor G. Kuperman, Stamford, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Cara K. Hale, for the appellees (defendants).
Elgo, Cradle and Suarez, Js.
The plaintiff, Andrea Ulanoff, who alleges she was injured when she walked into a set of glass doors, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, Becker Salon, LLC (salon), and Becker Chicaiza.1
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred when it precluded her from (1) introducing into evidence a photograph of the entrance to the salon, showing see-through glass doors with no lettering or handles, that was on the salon's website, and (2) questioning her witness, Vanessa Savio, about the appearance of the glass doors on a date previous to the date of the plaintiff's accident. She further claims that the cumulative effect of the court's erroneous rulings was harmful and likely affected the outcome of the trial.2 We agree with the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, which reasonably could have been found by the jury, inform our review. Chicaiza and his business partner, Nathali Ocampo, owned and operated the salon, which opened at its 380 Greenwich Avenue location on January 22, 2015, in the town of Greenwich. The salon was located on the second floor of the building near the elevator, with at least one other business also on the second floor, which was operated by an investment manager, Krishen Sud. The plaintiff was a longtime customer of Chicaiza, who is a hair stylist, having utilized his services for many years, approximately three times per week, at the salon's previous location, which had been on Mason Street in Greenwich. After the salon opened at its Greenwich Avenue location, the plaintiff visited the salon at least twice, and as many as nine times, in the three weeks following the salon's January 22, 2015 opening.
On the morning of February 11, 2015, the plaintiff's friend, Mary Ida Piacente, drove the plaintiff to the salon. The plaintiff, a jewelry designer who owns a company in New York City, was on her way to a large jewelry show in Florida and wanted to get her hair done before her afternoon flight. Armand Delarosa was working at the salon's front desk when he heard the elevator open, and he briefly looked up to see the plaintiff rushing out of the elevator, with her head down, as she looked at her cell phone. Delarosa, who was on the telephone, then heard a loud bang. When Delarosa looked toward the entrance to the salon, he saw the plaintiff on the floor in the hallway. The plaintiff described the accident to the jury as follows: "I saw Armand Delarosa at the reception desk and walked right into the door—the glass doors that were not—not realizing they were glass doors and they were closed and walked into them."
Sud, the operator of the business adjacent to the salon, heard a commotion and went into the hallway. He saw the plaintiff on the floor and helped her to sit up against a wall. Chicaiza and others from the salon also were in the hallway attempting to help the plaintiff. Chicaiza asked the plaintiff if she was okay and if she needed an ambulance. The plaintiff told the jury that she responded, The plaintiff then rose to her feet and made a call on her cell phone. Sud, seeing that the plaintiff was okay and on the phone, went back into his place of business. Chicaiza and others assisted the plaintiff into the waxing room of the salon. She had a large bump on her head, and Chicaiza tended to her. The plaintiff insisted she was "fine," and she wanted Chicaiza to style her hair. When Piacente came into the salon, she saw the plaintiff with ice on her head and on her knee. She waited while Chicaiza styled the plaintiff's hair. Piacente thereafter drove the plaintiff to Westchester Airport, where the plaintiff boarded a plane to Florida. The plaintiff later sought treatment for her claimed injuries.
On January 18, 2017, the plaintiff commenced the present case against both defendants, which sounds in negligence. The defendants asserted the special defense of comparative fault. Thereafter, the defendants, before the start of evidence, filed a motion in limine, which they later supplemented,3 seeking to preclude the plaintiff from, inter alia, introducing into evidence a photograph of the entrance to the salon, which, the defendants asserted, had been taken long after the accident and had been photoshopped to remove the signage and the handles from the door before the photograph was uploaded to the salon's website. In their motion, the defendants argued that such evidence either was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial. The plaintiff filed an objection, arguing in relevant part that the photograph "supports the plaintiff's testimony that there [were] no door handles on the entrance glass doors on February 11, 2015," and, if the photograph was altered, such alterations were done by the defendants and not by the plaintiff. During a September 11, 2018 hearing on the motions in limine, the plaintiff's counsel argued that the plaintiff would testify that this photograph was a fair and accurate representation of the entrance to the salon on the date of her accident. The court granted the defendants’ motion and precluded the plaintiff from attempting to offer the photograph into evidence during trial.
After trial commenced, one of the plaintiff's witnesses, Savio, who is the daughter of Piacente, was called to testify. Savio testified that she had helped to decorate the salon prior to its January 22, 2015 opening. When the plaintiff attempted to question Savio about the glass doors to the salon—whether they had signage or handles during the times she was at the salon—the defendants objected, and the court excused the jury.
Following the argument of counsel, the court precluded such questions.
Also during trial, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, removing all allegations against Chicaiza. The defendants again filed an answer and a comparative negligence special defense. The jury, on September 21, 2018, rendered a defendants’ verdict, which was accepted by the court. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary to our consideration of the plaintiff's claims.
On appeal, the plaintiff claims in relevant part that the trial court erred when it precluded her from (1) introducing into evidence a photograph of glass doors that had been obtained from the salon's website, and (2) asking Savio about the appearance of the glass doors prior to the plaintiff's accident. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the cumulative effect of the court's erroneous rulings was harmful. After setting forth our standard of review, we will address each claim in turn.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weaver v. McKnight , 313 Conn. 393, 426, 97 A.3d 920 (2014).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Quaranta v. King , 133 Conn. App. 565, 567, 36 A.3d 264 (2012).
The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly precluded her from introducing into evidence a photograph that had been obtained from the salon's website, showing the entrance to the salon, including the glass doors. She argues that "the trial the plaintiff [had] to establish the ‘chain of custody’ [of] the photograph, or bring in a witness to testify about when and how the photograph was taken, [which] is a clear misapplication of evidentiary law." Additionally, the plaintiff contends that the photograph was relevant and "[t]he condition and appearance of the doors on the date of the accident was a crucial issue in this case." The defendants argue that the photograph cannot be authenticated because it "was not a fair and accurate representation of the door in question" due to the fact that the plaintiff did not take the photograph herself, she could not identify the actual photographer, and there was no dispute that the original photograph had been altered before being placed on the salon's website. We conclude that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiff from offering into evidence the photograph obtained from the salon's website.
Initially, we find it unnecessary to consider the plaintiff's argument that the court erred in determining that the plaintiff needed to establish the chain of custody of the photograph. The defendants’ counsel, during oral argument before this court, readily conceded that the court erred in that respect. See Conn. Code Evid. § 9-1 (a) (). Moreover, insofar as the court's discussion at the hearing could be read to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McKinney
...as it is not prejudicial or merely cumulative." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ulanoff v. Becker Salon, LLC , 208 Conn. App. 1, 13, 262 A.3d 863 (2021).Because the defendant raised the defense of self-defense, the issue of whether his alleged head injuries were ca......
-
Nat'l Bank Trust v. Yurov
...renders any evidentiary impairment harmless. Accordingly, the defendant cannot prevail on this claim. See Ulanoff v. Becker Salon, LLC , 208 Conn. App. 1, 14–15, 262 A.3d 863 (2021) ("even if a court has acted improperly in connection with the introduction of evidence, reversal of a judgmen......