Palkimas v. Quilli

── Palkimas v. Quilli ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 21, 2026 Author: Alvord Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of 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 Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the 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 an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Palkimas v. Quilli RICHARD R. PALKIMAS v. EDGAR QUILLI ET AL. (AC 48078) Alvord, Suarez and Westbrook, Js. Syllabus The defendants, subcontractors and owners of a cabinet building business, appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiff, a home construc- tion contractor, for the defendants’ breach of the parties’ contract to build cabinets for three residential homes in accordance with the contract’s terms. The defendants claim, inter alia, that the court erred in finding that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (§ 42a-1-101 et seq.) did not apply to the parties’ contract. Held: The trial court correctly determined that the UCC did not govern the plain- tiff’s action, as the parties’ contract was primarily a contract for services, namely, the construction and installation of cabinets, not goods, and that determination was supported by the parties’ written agreement and their testimony at trial. The trial court abused its discretion in holding a posttrial hearing in dam- ages in response to the defendants’ motion to reargue, as the court did not issue an order indicating that the issues of liability and damages would be bifurcated, any evidence pertaining to damages should have been presented at trial, and the court should not have taken additional evidence after it rendered judgment. The trial court’s calculation of its damages awards was improper, as one award was not supported by evidence in the record, a second damages award was legally erroneous because it was not based on the plaintiff’s reasonable cost to complete the work, less the unpaid balance remaining on the contract, and the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by not having the project completed by another subcontractor in the several years since the contract was executed and the court failed to make any findings explaining what monetary value was attached to the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages. Argued December 2, 2025—officially released April 21, 2026 Procedural History Action to recover damages for breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the court, Menon, J.; judgment for the plaintiff; thereafter, the court granted the defendants’ motion to reargue and sua sponte ordered an evidentiary hearing in dam- ages; subsequently, the court, following a hearing in  Palkimas v. Quilli damages, awarded c