Gainty v. Infantino

── Gainty v. Infantino ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 05, 2026 Author: Cradle 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. ************************************************  Gainty v. Infantino SUSAN F. GAINTY v. MICHAEL INFANTINO (AC 47887) Cradle, C. J., and Moll and Seeley, Js. Syllabus The defendant appealed from the trial court’s judgment affirming a family support magistrate’s decision ordering him to pay overdue child support to the plaintiff and granting the plaintiff’s motions for appellate attorney’s fees and for contempt. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly affirmed the magistrate’s decision. Held: The trial court properly affirmed the magistrate’s decision, as the magis- trate’s finding underlying the decision regarding the balance in overdue child support owed by the defendant was not clearly erroneous. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees, as the court’s finding that rejecting the plain- tiff’s request for such fees would undermine the court’s prior financial orders and lead to an inequitable result was sufficient to justify the award. The trial court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for contempt, as the defendant’s claim that the decision underlying the motion conflicted with two prior orders and, thus, was not clear and unambiguous was unavailing. Argued January 21—officially released May 5, 2026 Procedural History Action to establish paternity of the plaintiff’s minor children, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the court, Prestley, J.; judgment declaring that the defendant is the father of the plaintiff’s minor children and granting certain other relief; thereafter, the family support magistrate, David A. Dee, issued a certain order relating to a postjudgment motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff; subsequently, the defendant appealed to the court, Alfano, J.; judgment affirming the order of the family support magistrate and granting the plain- tiff’s motions for attorney’s fees and for contempt and awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed. John F. Morris, for the appellant (defendant).  Gainty v. Infantino Campbell D. Barrett, with whom was Stacie L. Provencher, for the appellee (plaintiff). Opinion MOLL, J. The defendant, Michael Infantino, appeals from the judgment of the trial court affirming a family support magistrate’s decision ordering him to pay over- due child s