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

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. 

*********************************************** 
DAVID CROUZET v. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

OF STONINGTON ET AL.

(SC 20545)

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins,

Kahn and Ecker, Js.*

Argued February 17—officially released April 26, 2022

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for environmental contamination of certain of the plaintiff’s real property, and

for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the

judicial district of New London, and tried to the court,

Hon. Joseph Q. Koletsky, judge trial referee, who, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, rendered judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff

appealed to the Appellate Court, Lavine and Bright,

Js., with Prescott, J., dissenting, which reversed the

trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new

trial, and the defendants, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Proloy K. Das, with whom, on the brief, were Benjamin H. Nissim, Leonard M. Isaac, and James J. Nugent,

for the appellants (defendants).

Eric J. Garofano, with whom was Thomas J. Londregan and, on the brief, Ralph J. Monaco, for the

plaintiff (appellee).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, David Crouzet, brought

this action against the defendants, First Baptist Church

of Stonington and Second Congregational Church of

Stonington, alleging that fuel oil had leaked from an

underground storage tank that previously had been

located on the defendants’ property onto the plaintiff’s

property, thereby contaminating it. The case was tried

to the court, which concluded that a ‘‘secondary source’’

for the oil contamination existed on the plaintiff’s property and, therefore, that the plaintiff had failed to prove

its case. Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment

for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court’s finding that

there was a secondary source for the oil contamination

was clearly erroneous and that, even if that finding was

supported by the evidence, that would not mean that

the plaintiff failed to prove that the oil tank on the

defendants’ property was the primary source of the

contamination. Crouzet v. First Baptist Church of Stonington, 199 Conn. App. 532, 553–54, 239 A.3d 321 (2020).

The Appellate Court agreed with the plaintiff and

reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded

the case for a new trial. Id., 555, 559–60, 562. We then

granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal,

limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court,

on the record in this case, properly reverse the judgment

of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants

on the grounds that (1) the trial court committed clear

error in finding that a secondary source was responsible

for the contamination of the plaintiff’s property, and

(2) even if there had been a secondary source of contamination, the presence of that secondary source does not

mean that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants’ oil tank contaminated [the] property?’’ Crouzet

v. First Baptist Church of Stonington, 335 Conn. 979,

241 A.3d 703 (2020). We conclude that certification was

improvidently granted and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

The factual background and procedural history of

this case are aptly set forth in the Appellate Court’s

opinion, and there is no need to repeat them in detail

here. See Crouzet v. First Baptist Church of Stonington, supra, 199 Conn. App. 534–53. It suffices to state

that the plaintiff commenced this action against the

defendants, alleging that an underground oil storage

tank that previously had been located on property

owned by the defendants at 48 Trumbull Avenue in

Stonington had leaked and contaminated the soil next

to and under the plaintiff’s residence on the adjoining

property at 50 Trumbull Avenue. Id., 534, 539. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief. After a trial

to the court, the trial court rendered judgment for the

defendants. Id., 552.

The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, and a

majority of the court agreed with his claims. Id., 555,
559–60. But cf. id., 563, 566–67, 574 (Prescott, J., dissenting). Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the

judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for

a new trial. Id., 562.

After examining the record on appeal and considering

the briefs and arguments of the parties, we have concluded

that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the

ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

* This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this

court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson, and Justices McDonald, D’Auria,

Mullins, Kahn and Ecker. Although Justice Mullins was not present at oral

argument, he has read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording

of the oral argument prior to participating in this decision.