 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alexandru v. Dowd9/16/2003
The plaintiff, Michaela I. Alexandru, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Glenn W. Dowd. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant because it improperly determined that the defendant had an absolute privilege. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiff's claim. The operative complaint in this case is the third amended complaint, filed on October 20, 2000. It consists of five counts alleging libel, slander, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process. The allegations contained in that complaint reveal that in the mid-1990s the plaintiff initiated an action against her former employer, Northeast Utilities Services Company (Northeast Utilities), in federal court, alleging, inter alia, sexual harassment and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In that case, the plaintiff claimed that as a result of the tortious conduct of her employer, she suffered severe emotional distress and that the stress caused her to suffer a miscarriage.
The defendant in the present action is an attorney who represented Northeast Utilities in the previous action. In the present action, each of the plaintiff's causes of action is founded on the plaintiff's allegation that during the former action, the defendant made false and defamatory statements about her to the court in a memorandum of law in support of a motion in limine and in a hearing before the court on the same issue.
In response to the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant filed an answer and two special defenses in which he claimed that he was absolutely privileged to publish the allegedly defamatory statements. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 25, 2002, the court granted the defendant's motion as to all counts of the plaintiff's complaint because it found that the defendant's statements were absolutely privileged. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
We first set forth our standard of review. "The standard of review of a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment is well established. Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book ยง 17-49. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . Our review of the trial court's decision to grant motion for summary judgment is plenary." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 263 Conn. 424, 450, 820 A.2d 258 (2003).
The plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant because it improperly determined that he had an absolute privilege to publish the allegedly defamatory statements at issue. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the defendant was not entitled to an absolute privilege because the allegedly defamatory statements were not pertinent to a subject in controversy. We disagree.
We conclude that the court properly determined that the defendant was absolutely privileged to publish the allegedly defamatory statements at issue, and, thus, the court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's counts alleging libel, slander, invasion of privacy and intentional inflicti
Page 1 2 3 4 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|