J. R. v. N. K.
Citations
- 232 Conn. App. 434
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing his applica- tion for relief from abuse, which had sought the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order against the defendant, his former domestic part- ner. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that the defendant was not exercising coercive control and/or stalking the plaintiff pursuant to statute (§ 46b-1 (b) (2) and (4)). Held: This court, concluding that the language of § 46b-1 (b) (4) was clear and unambiguous and that the examples set forth therein did not constitute an exhaustive or exclusive list, applied a broader definition of the term than used by the trial court, and determined that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that the defendant had, in purpose or effect, unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's free will and personal liberty, as any coercive control contemplated by § 46b-1 (b) (4) had ended by the time the plaintiff filed the application for a domestic violence restraining order. The trial court properly concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case that the defendant had stalked the plaintiff pursuant to § 46b-1 (b) (2), as there was a legitimate purpose for all of the defendant's communications to the plaintiff, including emails with attachments of judg- ment liens and mortgage related documents for a property the parties owned, and they were not sent with the intent to harass, terrorize or alarm. This court concluded that the plaintiff's unpreserved claim that he was denied his federal and state constitutional right to equal protection when he was treated differently than similarly situated heterosexual or female victims was not supported by any evidence of discrimination or bias by the trial court, as the record was devoid of any evidence that the trial court had selectively treated the plaintiff for impermissible reasons, and the plaintiff's reliance on the outcome of other cases involvin
Judges: Bright; Westbrook; Prescott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.