Daniel Fiamengo v. Mary Burgdorff (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In this matter, the self-represented incarcerated plaintiff has brought an action against nine defendants.

Default was entered against defendant Bonnie Allyn for failure to plead on July 15, 2009.   Default for failure to appear against defendant Christine Lazur was granted on January 15, 2009 and default for failure to appear against defendant Cynthia Dyer was granted on January 15, 2009.

The matters came before the court for judgment and hearing in damages on October 5, 2010, at which time plaintiff testified and presented evidence.

As a consequence of the default against the above defendants, the court is bound by the material factual allegations set forth in the complaint.   If those allegations provide a sufficient basis for liability, the court is required by law to render judgment against such defendants and award damages accordingly.   Whitaker v. Taylor, 99 Conn.App. 719, 727 (2007).

I.

Claims against defendant Bonnie Allyn are set forth in the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth counts of the revised complaint.

The fifth count is a claim based upon breach of contract and alleges that plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Allyn's failure to pay her share of rent and bills for light and power.   There was no testimony or evidence concerning rent and this claim is considered abandoned.   Plaintiff testified as to Allyn's liability for a light and power bill in the amount of $397.65.   Plaintiff testified that he has never paid this bill.   Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to money damages under this claim.

The sixth count seeks the same damages as the fifth count but is based upon a claim of negligence.

The seventh count is based upon a claim of recklessness and alleges that Allyn removed a log wood splitter valued at $1,500 from premises at 75 Preston Road, Griswold.   The evidence indicates that plaintiff did not own the log wood splitter and there was no proof that he suffered ascertainable damages as a result of its removal.

The eighth count is a claim of criminal conspiracy against Allyn resulting in plaintiff's loss of wages for a period of 18 months.   The evidence indicates that plaintiff was incarcerated during this period.   There was no proof that plaintiff suffered any ascertainable damages as a result of any criminal conspiracy.

II.

Plaintiff's claim against defendant Christine Lazur are set forth in the twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth count of the revised complaint.   The twenty-sixth count claims negligence and alleges that Lazur made a false insurance claim which resulted in plaintiff suffering lost wages.   There was no credible evidence indicating damages for lost wages.

The twenty-seventh count alleges recklessness and repeats the same claims for lost wages.

The twenty-eighth count alleges damages as a result of a criminal conspiracy.   There was no credible evidence of damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of any criminal conspiracy.

III.

Plaintiff's claims against defendant Cynthia Dyer are set forth in the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth counts of the revised complaint.

The twenty-third count is a claim of negligence and alleges that Dyer caused plaintiff to incur a debt of $1,004.89.   The basis of this claim is that Dyer was responsible for checks in that amount being drawn against plaintiff's account.   Documents submitted in evidence by plaintiff, including a police report, indicate that plaintiff was involved in passing the checks and that there were no funds in the account.   Plaintiff has failed to prove any ascertainable damages under the allegations of this count.

The twenty-fourth count is based upon a claim of recklessness by Dyer in passing the checks.   This count also claims lost wages.   There was, however, no credible evidence that plaintiff suffered any ascertainable damages as a result of the allegations of this count.

The twenty-fifth count alleges a conspiracy by Dyer to benefit her husband who had been arrested for possession of heroin.   The basis of plaintiff's claim appears to be that Dyer's husband received favorable court treatment and that plaintiff did not.   There was no evidence that plaintiff suffered any ascertainable damages as a result of the allegations of this count.

CONCLUSION

After a full hearing, plaintiff has failed to prove any damages as a result of his claims against the above-named defendants.

Joseph J. Purtill

Judge Trial Referee

Purtill, Joseph J., J.T.R.