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

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.

******************************************************
RICHARD SCALISE ET AL. v. CUMMINGS AND

LOCKWOOD, LLC

(AC 35456)

Alvord, Sheldon and Pellegrino, Js.

Argued November 14, 2013—officially released February 11, 2014

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of

Hartford, Peck, J.)

Kirk D. Tavtigian, Jr., for the appellants (plaintiffs).

John F. Carberry, with whom, on the brief, was William N. Wright, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

SHELDON, J. The plaintiffs, Richard Scalise and Eleanor Mihailidis, appeal from the judgment of the trial

court granting the motion of the defendant, Cummings & Lockwood, LLC, to dismiss the plaintiffs’ vexatious litigation action on the ground that the claim

therein presented is unripe for adjudication. The plaintiffs argue on appeal that their vexatious litigation

action is ripe for adjudication despite the fact that several counts of the complaint in the underlying action

remain pending against them, because the favorable

termination requirement has been satisfied as to several

other underlying claims upon which the vexatious litigation action is based. We disagree with the plaintiffs,

and thus affirm the judgment of the court.

The trial court consolidated the present vexatious

litigation action with a second vexatious litigation

action commenced by the plaintiffs against East Greyrock, LLC, Greyrock at Oysterbend, LLC, and Jerry

Effren, both as trustee and in his individual capacity,

stemming from the same underlying action. The underlying facts and issue on appeal are identical in both

cases.

The plaintiffs’ claim was fully addressed and rejected

by this court in the companion case of Scalise v. East

Greyrock, LLC, 148 Conn. App. 176, A.3d (2014),

which was also decided today. That decision therefore

is dispositive of the plaintiffs’ claim.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.