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

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. 

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 advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest 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 the 

opinion as it appears 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. 

*********************************************** 
CHARLES PRESTO, EXECUTOR (ESTATE

OF WILLIAM PRESTO), ET AL. v.

TEODOZJA PRESTO ET AL.

(AC 41545)

Lavine, Devlin and Bear, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff, as executor of the decedent’s estate and in his individual

capacity, sought a declaratory judgment as to certain real property that

the decedent had devised to the defendants, the decedent’s widow and

stepsons, and that the plaintiff’s brother, in his will, later devised to the

decedent’s widow. The brother’s will was filed in the Probate Court,

and the plaintiff objected to the will on the ground that it conflicted

with the decedent’s will as to who was to inherit the property. The trial

court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action,

concluding that the plaintiff’s claims were not ripe for adjudication in

the Superior Court because, at the time of the filing of the complaint,

they were still pending before the Probate Court. The trial rendered

judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed to this

court, which dismissed that portion of the appeal filed by the plaintiff

in his capacity as executor of the decedent’s estate. Held that the judgment of the trial court was affirmed; because the trial court thoroughly

addressed the arguments raised in this appeal in its memorandum of

decision, this court adopted the trial court’s well reasoned decision as

a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues.

Argued December 11, 2019—officially released February 25, 2020

Procedural History

Action seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that

the plaintiffs are entitled to certain real property under

the decedent’s will, and for other relief, brought to

the Superior Court in the judicial district of StamfordNorwalk, where the court, Genuario, J., granted the

defendants’ motion to dismiss and rendered judgment

thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this

court; thereafter, the court, Genuario, J., issued an

articulation of its decision; subsequently, the appeal

was dismissed in part. Affirmed.

Charles Presto, self-represented, the appellant

(plaintiff).

Peter V. Lathouris, with whom, on the brief, was

Michael P. Longo, Jr., for the appellees (defendants).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff Charles Presto, in his

capacity as the executor of the estate of William Presto,

and in his individual capacity,1 appeals from the judgment dismissing his declaratory judgment action

against the defendants, Teodozja Presto, Andrzej

Mazurek, and Stanislaus Mazurek, for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction on the ground that the claims raised

were not ripe for adjudication. We affirm the judgment

of the trial court.

The plaintiff’s complaint contains the following allegations. The plaintiff is the executor of the estate of

William Presto. William Presto died on March 24, 1998,

and his will was entered into probate. William Presto,

who was the father of the plaintiff and Robert Presto,

the husband of Teodozja Presto, and the stepfather

of Andrzej Mazurek and Stanislaus Mazurek, devised

certain interests in his real property located at 10 Carleton Street, Greenwich (property), to Teodozja Presto

and Robert Presto. Robert Presto died on September

5, 2016, and left a will in which he devised the property.

His will was filed in the Greenwich Probate Court. The

plaintiff objected to Robert Presto’s will on the ground

that it conflicted with their father’s will as to who was

to inherit the property.

The plaintiff’s appeal concerns the parties’ rights pursuant to William Presto’s will, including whether Robert

Presto had the right to devise the real property to Teodozja Presto upon his death. The plaintiff also seeks to

be appointed executor of Robert Presto’s estate in light

of Teodozja Presto’s alleged bad faith and unconscionable conduct. On May 31, 2017, the defendants filed a

motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment

action. On February 14, 2018, the court issued a memorandum of decision dismissing the action. The court

concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were not ripe for

adjudication in the Superior Court because, at the time

of the filing of the complaint, they were still pending

before the Greenwich Probate Court.

Upon examination of the record on appeal and the

briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that

the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff’s

action should be affirmed. Because the court thoroughly addressed the arguments raised in this appeal,

we adopt its well reasoned decision as a statement of

the facts and the applicable law on the issues. See Presto

v. Presto, Superior Court, judicial district of StamfordNorwalk, Docket No. CV-17-5016650-S (February 14,

2018) (reprinted at 196 Conn. App. , A.3d ).

It would serve no useful purpose for this court to engage

in any further discussion. See, e.g., Woodruff v.

Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010);

Geiger v. Carey, 170 Conn. App. 459, 462, 154 A.3d

1093 (2017).
The judgment is affirmed.

1 This court dismissed that portion of the appeal filed by the plaintiff in

his capacity as the executor of the estate of William Presto; all references

herein to the plaintiff are to Charles Presto in his individual capacity.