Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

MARK HORENIAN v. MARCEL D. WASHINGTON ET AL.* (AC 32281)
Bishop, Bear and Lavery, Js. Argued January 10--officially released April 19, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Hon. Jerry Wagner, judge trial referee.) Mark Horenian, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff). Catharine H. Freeman, assistant corporation counsel, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion

LAVERY, J. The plaintiff, Mark Horenian, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Marcel D. Washington and the city of Hartford (city), on all six counts of his revised complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that several genuine issues of material fact exist and, therefore, that the court improperly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.1 We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm the judgment of the trial court in part. The following facts and procedural history, as alleged by the plaintiff and reasonably garnered from the record, are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff commenced this action on January 9, 2008, against Washington, a patrolman with the Hartford police department (department), and the city, Washington's employer. By way of a six count revised complaint filed on October 17, 2008, the plaintiff alleged several causes of action against both defendants. Against Washington, the plaintiff alleged: intentional infliction of emotional distress in the first count; negligent infliction of emotional distress in the second count; and abuse of process in the third count. Against the city, the plaintiff alleged: intentional infliction of emotional distress in the fourth count; negligent infliction of emotional distress in the fifth count; and intentional infliction of emotional distress in the sixth count. The revised complaint sets forth the following allegations which form the basis of the plaintiff's claims on appeal. Shortly before midnight on November 26, 2005, the plaintiff was involved in a two vehicle collision near the intersection of Hudson Street and Park Street in Hartford. The plaintiff sustained several injuries as a result of the collision and was taken by ambulance to Hartford Hospital (hospital) for treatment. The department dispatched Washington to the scene of the collision shortly after the collision occurred. Upon arriving at the scene, Washington immediately launched an investigation. After he had interviewed several witnesses and completed his initial examination of the scene, Washington proceeded to the hospital for the purpose of interviewing the plaintiff. Upon arriving at the hospital, Washington interviewed the plaintiff as he was lying in bed. Once Washington had completed the interview, he informed the plaintiff that he had determined that the plaintiff had made an improper U-turn immediately before the collision occurred and that the plaintiff was therefore at fault for the collision. The plaintiff protested and told Washington that certain tire marks existed at the scene of the collision that would demonstrate that Washington's conclusion was incorrect. Washington then left the plaintiff's bedside to investigate further.

later. Upon entering the plaintiff's room, Washington, ``[i]n a great rage and anger,'' threw a traffic citation onto the plaintiff's chest, told the plaintiff that he should arrest him for lying about the tire marks and departed. The plaintiff was discharged from the hospital several hours later and immediately returned to the scene of the collision. Upon his return, the plaintiff located the tire marks that he had described to Washington and contacted the department. The plaintiff requested that Washington and a supervising officer return to the scene of the collision so that he could show them the tire marks and prove that his earlier statement to Washington was true. Washington returned to the scene in the company of Sergeant Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., his superior officer. The plaintiff showed Washington and Rodriguez the tire marks and again insisted that Washington's conclusion was incorrect. Thereafter, Rodriguez requested that the plaintiff provide him with his copy of the citation and destroyed it in Washington's presence. Washington, nevertheless, submitted a separate copy of the citation to the department's traffic division for processing. The plaintiff subsequently was summoned to appear before the trial court in order to answer for the charge of making an improper U-turn in violation of General Statutes

Download Horenian v. Washington.pdf

Connecticut Law