Chapnick v. DiLauro

Citations

• 212 Conn. App. 263

Syllabus

The plaintiffs brought an action for, inter alia, nuisance, against several of their neighbors, alleging that the neighbors encouraged and allowed their dogs to urinate and defecate near the windows of the plaintiffs' condominium properties and that several neighbors, including the defen- dants F and P, made false or exaggerated statements to the police in an investigation of the plaintiff R's interactions with some of his neighbors related to the dog issues that led to his arrest. The trial court granted the special motions filed by F and P, pursuant to Connecticut's anti- SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a), to dismiss the counts of the complaint asserted against them. On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed that the court erred in dismissing the counts of the complaint against F and P alleging nuisance. Held that, as F and P failed to satisfy their initial burden under § 52-196a as to the claims alleging nuisance, the trial court incorrectly granted the special motions to dismiss as to those claims: the alleged conduct of F and P, including walking a dog and allowing it to urinate and defecate in a certain location and encouraging such behavior with the dog, did not fit within the ambit of protected constitutional conduct as defined by § 52-196a, which concerns the exercise of free speech, the right to petition and the right of association; moreover, the alleged conduct relating to the nuisance claims was not done in connection with a matter of public concern, as the dispute did not relate to the government, zoning, regulatory matters, a public official or figure, or an audiovisual work, the location of the conduct did not relate to health or safety, and the well-being of the community was not affected by the conduct. Argued January 20—officially released May 3, 2022