Skip to main content

Priore v. Haig

Citations

  • 196 Conn. App. 675

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for defamation in connection with statements made by the defendant about the plaintiff at a public hearing before the Greenwich Planning and Zoning Commission on the plaintiff's application for a special permit to construct a new residence and new sewer line on his property. At the hearing, the defendant addressed the commission to share her concerns regarding the plaintiff's application. In addition to her concern that the proposed sewer line would have an impact on the health of trees, she stated that the plaintiff had not been trustworthy, had a serious criminal past, and had paid more than $40,000,000 in fines to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The press was in attendance and published parts of the defendant's state- ment. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action claiming, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because her statements were entitled to absolute litigation immunity, which the court granted. The plaintiff filed a motion to reargue, claiming that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the hearing was quasi- judicial in nature, improperly considered whether the defendant's state- ments were pertinent rather than relevant to the subject matter of the hearing, applied the wrong standard to a motion to dismiss, and failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts. The court denied the motion and the plaintiff appealed to this court claiming, inter alia, that the trial court incorrectly granted the motion to dismiss and denied his motion to reargue. Held: 1. The trial court properly decided the defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of the complaint, the transcript of the hearing, and the defendant's affidavit, and did not abuse its discretion in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing or in denying the plaintiff's motion to reargue; the plaintiff failed to present evidence to establish a dispute as to a material jur

Judges: Alvord; Prescott; Pellegrino

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced 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.