Stephen P. Brown

Michael A. Hill (Associate-Stamford, CT) and Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) obtained summary judgment in Bridgeport Superior Court, Connecticut, for an engineering firm client. In 2021, the plaintiff was injured when a trench allegedly collapsed while he was performing excavation and water main installation work at a property. The plaintiff named our client in the lawsuit, but preliminary discussions revealed the engineering firm was not associated with the property at the time of the incident. After confirming this with the client, Michael contacted the plaintiff’s counsel to determine the basis for naming the client as a defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel advised that the codefendant’s counsel provided our client’s name. After conducting limited discovery with the parties to establish the client’s lack of involvement, Michael and Steve moved for summary judgment on that basis. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that he had no basis to oppose the motion and allowed it to enter on the record without objection. After Michael argued the motion, the presiding judge concurred with Wilson Elser’s arguments, granting summary judgment absent the plaintiff’s objection. The plaintiff informed counsel he would not object.

Stephen Brown (Partner-Stamford) and Irena Maier (Associate-Stamford) secured summary judgment in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Hartford Judicial District, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a Connecticut attorney. In this legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty action, the plaintiff claimed that our client, who represented the plaintiff in an underlying product liability matter, failed to file a timely objection to a summary judgment motion, resulting in the dismissal of the case. Irena and Steve moved for summary judgment on both counts, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish that he would have prevailed in the underlying action – an essential element of the plaintiff’s claims. In support of their motion, the Stamford team relied on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in the present case and the expert disclosures from the underlying matter, and submitted additional moving papers addressing the plaintiff’s counterarguments. The Court agreed with Steve and Irena’s arguments, finding that the record was devoid of evidence supporting a rational inference that the plaintiff would have succeeded in the underlying case, and granted the motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Michael A. Hill (Associate-Stamford, CT) obtained dismissal in Danbury Superior Court, Connecticut, for a nonprofit youth baseball league client, based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing. The plaintiff, an unincorporated association formed solely for the purpose of this lawsuit, filed suit against our client, its local league affiliate, and 23 individual board members. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged negligence, fraud, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Recognizing that the parties’ defenses were aligned, Michael coordinated with the codefendant’s counsel to research dismissal of the matter based on jurisdictional grounds. After meticulous review of case law and drafts, Wilson Elser and the codefendant’s counsel filed motions to dismiss. During oral argument, Michael further articulated the firm’s position on the plaintiff’s standing, including its attempt to assert claims on behalf of a proposed class. The court agreed with the arguments, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this action and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of our client and all other defendants.

Colleen Vellturo (Of Counsel-Stamford, CT) and Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) represented a Vermont-based attorney and firm that handled the sale of a Connecticut man’s second home in Vermont. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, which held that the Vermont-based attorney could not be brought into court in Connecticut because Connecticut’s long-arm statute could not provide personal jurisdiction over the Vermont defendants. The plaintiff, the girlfriend of the man whose property was sold, failed to demonstrate sufficient facts such that any of the sections of the long-arm statute could apply. Specifically, the Vermont firm did not transact business in Connecticut, enter into a contract in Connecticut, solicit business from Connecticut residents, derive substantial revenue from Connecticut, nor did they commit a tort in Connecticut. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action as to the Vermont attorneys.