Commissiong v. Currytto

── Commissiong v. Currytto ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 12, 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. ************************************************  Comissiong v. Currytto MERLISSA COMISSIONG ET AL. v. RAYMOND CURRYTTO (AC 47680) Alvord, Moll and Clark, Js. Syllabus The defendant appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim that the defendant failed to perform home improvement services in their home’s upstairs bathrooms in a workmanlike manner. At trial, the plaintiffs presented expert testimony from A, a general contractor hired by the plaintiffs after they terminated the defendant’s ser- vices. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that he breached the parties’ contract. Held: The trial court properly applied the law in determining that the defendant had not met his burden of proving that the plaintiffs had materially breached the contract by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to cure, as the court found that the serious deficiencies in the upstairs bathrooms would not be corrected with additional time, and, therefore, providing notice and an opportunity to cure would have been futile. This court declined to review the merits of the defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly determined that he failed to prove the count of his counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment, as the defendant failed to provide an adequate record for review. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting A’s testimony as an expert in home improvement contracting or in crediting A’s testimony to find that the work performed by the defendant in the upstairs bathrooms was unworkmanlike, as, although A admitted that he was not an expert in plumb- ing matters, the defendant did not identify any portion of A’s testimony that required plumbing expertise or that exceeded the scope of his qualifications as an expert in home improvement contracting, and the defendant did not object to any specific portion of A’s testimony on the basis that he did not possess the appropriate qualifications to offer an expert opinion. This court declined to review the defendant’s claim that the trial court deprived him of his right to a fair trial, as it was inadequately briefed. Argued January 20—officially released May 12, 2026 Procedural History Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, where the defendant filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the case was tried t