Dickau v. Mingrone

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** JASON DICKAU v. LAWRENCE MINGRONE (AC 42256) Keller, Elgo and Devlin, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff, who had purchased certain residential real property in New Haven from the defendant, brought an action seeking damages for, inter alia, breach of contract for the defendant’s failure under the contract to deliver a property that contained three legal dwelling units. The defendant purchased the property in 1979, and had used it as a three unit residence during his ownership. In 2011, the city building depart- ment sent a letter to the defendant, informing him that the department’s records indicated that the property was a two unit residence, and that it may have been altered without approval from the building department. Thereafter, the defendant spoke with the building department’s director, and the defendant believed that the matter was resolved. Subsequently, the defendant represented in a real estate listing that the property was a three unit residence and sold the property to the plaintiff in 2015, without informing the plaintiff of the 2011 letter. Thereafter, the plaintiff became aware of the 2011 letter upon inspecting the records of the building department on an unrelated matter. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court erred in finding that the city building department had not made a determination that the plaintiff’s property contained only two residential units. Held: 1. The trial court did not err in finding that the city building department had not made a determination regarding the use and occupancy status of the property; contrary to the plaintiff’s claim that the building depart- ment had determined that the property contained a two unit residence, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding, as the building department official testified that no determina- tion regarding the number of legal units had been made, no …Original document