Costello & McCormack, P.C. v. Manero

Citations

• 194 Conn. App. 417

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for, inter alia, breach of contract in connection with its representation of the defendant in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. After the trial court granted the defendant's motion to implead three third-party defendants, F, W and M Co., F filed a cross complaint against the plaintiff, W and M. Co., alleging, inter alia, that they had committed legal malpractice in connection with the defendant's dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court thereafter granted motions to preclude expert testimony filed by the plaintiff and W and M Co., and subsequently granted their motions for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon. Follow- ing the trial court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, F appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court properly concluded that F's cross complaint set forth a claim of legal malpractice against the plaintiff, W and M Co.; the operative complaint was F's answers, defenses and cross claim, not his amended motion to implead response, which was filed before F became a party to the action, and the only claim in the operative complaint, when construed liberally, sounded in legal malpractice. 2. The trial court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of the cross claim defendants on the legal malpractice claim; despite having ample opportunity to do so, F, the cross claim plaintiff, failed to properly disclose expert witnesses in accordance with the requirements of our rules of practice, and in the absence of such testimony, F could not establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice because he could not prove either a breach of the applicable standard of care or the element of causation. Argued September 10—officially released November 19, 2019