Gagne v. Vaccaro — 4/28/2014

The present action is the culmination of a disagreement between two attorneys that has lasted decades. The plaintiff… appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which concluded that General Statutes § 51-183c required Hon. Anthony V. DeMayo, judge trial referee, to recuse himself from presiding over a hearing regarding the reasonableness of attorney’s fees. The Appellate Court determined that this conclusion was dispositive of the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of the defendant’s other claims. We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that . . . § 51-183c required [Judge DeMayo] to recuse [him]self from presiding over the hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees?’ Gagne v. Vaccaro, 304 Conn. 907, 39 A.3d 1118 (2012). We do not reach this claim, or any of the defendant’s alternative grounds for affirmance with respect to Judge DeMayo’s recusal, however, because we conclude that these claims are moot. We therefore remand the case to the Appellate Court with direction to dismiss the appeal as to the recusal issue and to consider the defendant’s remaining claims.

SC18937

Read Opinion