******************************************************

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.

******************************************************
ROBERT M. BLOCH v. BARBARA

CALLAGHAN ET AL.

(AC 38100)

Alvord, Sheldon and Prescott, Js.

Argued October 24—officially released December 13, 2016

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New

Haven, B. Fischer, J.)

Robert M. Bloch, self-represented, the appellant

(plaintiff).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. On October 24, 2014, the plaintiff,

Robert M. Bloch, filed this action sounding in tort

against Barbara Callaghan and against two attorneys

who the plaintiff claimed had represented her, Gregory

Bachand and Frank Lieto. On December 1, 2014, Bachand moved that the action be dismissed as to him for

lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that (1)

the plaintiff did not post a recognizance bond, as

required by General Statutes § 52-185 and Practice Book

§ 8-3, and (2) the plaintiff did not serve him in hand or

at his place of abode, as required by General Statutes

§ 52-54.

The trial court held a hearing on Bachand’s motion

on April 27, 2015. By order dated May 6, 2015, the court

granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that ‘‘there

was insufficient service of process upon him.’’ In his

brief to this court, the plaintiff fails to challenge the

basis upon which the trial court dismissed his claim

against Bachand. Instead, the plaintiff argues that his

claim against Bachand should not have been dismissed

on the basis of his failure to provide a recognizance.

Even if the plaintiff is correct in this regard, we can

provide him no relief because he has failed to challenge

the trial court’s stated basis for dismissing his claim,

namely, his failure to properly serve Bachand. His claim

is therefore moot. See In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539,

556–57, 979 A.2d 469 (2009).

The appeal is dismissed.