Summary
The plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal of his application for a domestic violence restraining order against his former domestic partner. The appellate court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of coercive control or stalking under the applicable statute, but reversed on procedural grounds because the trial court improperly granted a directed verdict instead of a judgment of dismissal in a bench trial. The case was remanded with directions to enter a proper judgment of dismissal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the defendant did not exercise coercive control under § 46b‑1(b)(4).
- Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of stalking under § 46b‑1(b)(2) and § 53a‑181d(b)(1).
- Whether the trial court’s form of judgment was proper, or whether the case should be dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 15‑8.
Holdings
- The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of coercive control; the trial court’s conclusion is affirmed.
- The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of stalking; the trial court’s conclusion is affirmed.
- The form of the judgment was improper; the case is remanded for a judgment of dismissal pursuant to Practice Book § 15‑8.
- The claim was unpreserved and unsupported; it is dismissed.
Key quotations
“The standard for determining whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, under Practice Book § 15‑8, is whether the plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence that, if believed, would establish a prima facie case, not whether the trier of fact believes it.” (at 6)
“Because the standard for granting a motion for directed verdict is the same as the standard for granting a motion for judgment of dismissal [pursuant to Practice Book § 15‑8]; we will treat the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict as a motion for a judgment of dismissal for purposes of this appeal.” (at 6)
Factual background
The parties were domestic partners from 1999 until 2019 and jointly owned a residence. After the relationship ended, the defendant allegedly made unauthorized withdrawals from the plaintiff's accounts, opened accounts in the plaintiff's name, and sent a series of harassing emails and a FedEx package to the plaintiff's workplace. The plaintiff filed an application for relief from abuse on May 3, 2023, alleging coercive control and stalking under General Statutes § 46b‑1(b).
Procedural history
The Superior Court in Stamford-Norwalk entered a temporary restraining order, tried the case, and granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, dismissing the plaintiff's application for relief from abuse and entering a judgment of dismissal under Practice Book § 14‑3. The plaintiff appealed.
Remand instructions
Render a judgment of dismissal pursuant to Practice Book § 15‑8.