Court Opinion

ID: 9964215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 12:02:33.956396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:14.210604
License: Public Domain

************************************************
   The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
   All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut 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
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       0, 0

         2                           ,0                            0 Conn. App. 1
                                       C. W. v. Warzecha

                         C. W. v. KEITH J. WARZECHA*
                                   (AC 45775)
                                Suarez, Clark and Prescott, Js.

                                            Syllabus

         The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court
            for the plaintiff on her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
            Between 2012 and 2015, the plaintiff periodically operated her business
            that transported special needs children to and from school from her
            home. Between 2012 and 2015, the defendant, who resided in a nearby
            home, became concerned that the plaintiff was operating a commercial
            transportation business from her home after he observed an increase
            in the number of cars and the amount of traffic in the neighborhood
            that was associated with the plaintiff’s business. In 2015, the defendant
            complained to his town’s zoning department and discovered that the
            plaintiff did not have a permit to operate her business from her home.
            After meeting with one or more zoning department officials, the defen-
            dant began to document his complaints with photos, digital recordings,
            and a detailed written timeline of the comings and goings of the plaintiff,
            her family, and others based upon his personal surveillance of the plain-
            tiff’s property. The defendant continuously recorded the plaintiff’s resi-
            dence and took photos of the plaintiff’s property from his vehicle using
            a zoom lens. Although the defendant stopped taking photos of the plain-
            tiff’s property in approximately January or February, 2016, he continued
            to conduct video surveillance of the plaintiff’s home until the time of
            trial and would regularly review the digital recordings. The defendant
            submitted his documentation, including his digital recordings, photos,
            and a surveillance report of what he believed to be the plaintiff’s alleged
            zoning violation, to the town’s zoning department. In November, 2015,
            a zoning enforcement officer issued a cease and desist order to the
            plaintiff, claiming that the operation of her business violated the town’s
            zoning regulations. In response, the plaintiff contacted the local police
            department and complained to the defendant’s supervisors at his place
            of employment about his surveillance of her property. The plaintiff also

            * The record reflects that, after the trial court rendered its decision in
         the present case, the plaintiff, C. W., sought a civil protective order against
         the defendant, Keith J. Warzecha. In accordance with federal law; see 18
         U.S.C. § 2265 (d) (3) (2018), as amended by the Violence Against Women
         Act Reauthorization Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-103, § 106, 136 Stat. 49,
         851; we decline to identify any person protected or sought to be protected
         under a protection order, protective order, or a restraining order that was
         issued or applied for, or others through whom that person’s identity may
         be ascertained.
0, 0                          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                        Page 1

       0 Conn. App. 1                                    ,0                             3
                                      C. W. v. Warzecha
           occasionally walked by the defendant’s home and raised her middle
           finger toward his cameras, which she knew were recording her. The
           plaintiff subsequently commenced the present action, alleging that, over
           a two year period between October, 2015, and November, 2017, the
           defendant invaded her privacy by visually surveilling, photographing,
           and video recording her residence; following her in his car; photo-
           graphing her minor son at her home and while he was at a neighbor’s
           house; using a zoom lens to photograph through the plaintiff’s front
           door as a visitor entered; spying on her from neighboring properties;
           peering into her home as she watched television; and driving slowly
           past her home. In one count of her complaint, the plaintiff alleged
           negligent infliction of emotional distress and that the defendant knew
           or should have known that his conduct was likely to cause her to suffer
           emotional distress so severe that it could cause physical illness. At trial,
           the plaintiff testified about each of the allegations in her complaint
           and characterized the impact of the defendant’s conduct on her life as
           ‘‘devastating.’’ At the close of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the defendant’s
           counsel stated that he had an oral motion for a directed verdict. The court
           reserved judgment on the motion and, at the conclusion of evidence,
           the court ordered the parties to submit posttrial briefs. In the defendant’s
           posttrial brief, he argued, for the first time, that the court should grant
           the defendant’s ‘‘motion for dismissal’’ pursuant to the rule of practice
           (§ 15-8). Thereafter, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision,
           in which it found for the plaintiff on her claim for negligent infliction
           of emotional distress, stating that the defendant’s conduct created an
           unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional distress, that her
           distress was foreseeable, that the defendant was, in fact, aware that his
           conduct angered, annoyed, and distressed the plaintiff, that the plaintiff
           had established that the distress she experienced was severe enough
           that it might result in illness or bodily harm, that such distress was
           caused by the defendant, and that the defendant’s conduct created such
           a level of fear and anxiety that the plaintiff refused to open her windows
           or curtains or let her children play outside alone, that she lost her sense
           of privacy, and that she became more socially isolated because no one
           wanted to visit her at her home. The court awarded the plaintiff $10,000
           in compensatory damages but did not address the defendant’s motion
           for dismissal in its memorandum of decision. Held:
       1. This court declined to review the defendant’s claim that the trial court
           abused its discretion by asking him questions during the trial, sua sponte,
           that went beyond the scope of what was permissible: at trial, the defen-
           dant’s counsel did not object contemporaneously to the court’s ques-
           tioning of the defendant, nor did the defendant raise any claim of error
           related to the court’s questions in his posttrial brief, and, therefore, his
           claim was unpreserved; moreover, even if the defendant had preserved
           his claim, he did not provide any applicable legal authority or meaningful
           analysis in his appellate brief to support his claim of error, and, therefore,
Page 2                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

         4                          ,0                            0 Conn. App. 1
                                       C. W. v. Warzecha
              this court would still decline to review such claim because it was inade-
              quately briefed.
         2. The defendant’s claim that the evidence presented at trial did not support
              a finding of negligent infliction of emotional distress was unavailing,
              this court having found, on the basis of its careful review of the record
              and viewed in the manner most favorable to sustaining the judgment,
              that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial
              court’s judgment for the plaintiff with respect to each of the essential
              elements for a cause of action sounding in negligent infliction of emo-
              tional distress:
             a. The defendant could not prevail on his arguments that no reasonable
             fact finder could find that his documentation of activity open to public
             view created an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff severe emo-
             tional distress and that, because the plaintiff introduced no evidence
             that she knew of the full extent of the defendant’s documentation prior
             to trial, that the documentation in the emails from the defendant to the
             town could not support this element of her claim: this court’s review of
             the trial court’s memorandum of decision reflected that the trial court
             did not refer to the emails from the defendant to the town in concluding
             that he had created an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff emo-
             tional distress but, rather, based its finding on the defendant’s conduct
             as testified to by the plaintiff, which plainly encompassed conduct of
             which the plaintiff was aware prior to the time of trial; moreover, although
             the plaintiff, prior to the time of the trial, may not have been aware of
             the full extent of the defendant’s extremely detailed documentation of
             her daily activities, her testimony supported a finding that the distress
             she experienced arose from the defendant’s surveillance activities that
             were well-known to her over the course of the two year period, and, in
             addition to the plaintiff’s testimony concerning her emotional reaction
             to these activities, the trial court readily could have inferred that such
             distress was reasonable given the pervasive nature and extent of the
             defendant’s surveillance activities.
             b. The defendant’s argument that the plaintiff introduced no evidence
             that he knew she was distressed by his documentation of her activity
             was unavailing: the plaintiff was not required to prove that the defendant
             had actual knowledge of her distress, only that he should have realized
             that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff
             emotional distress, to satisfy this element of her claim, and, on the basis
             of the evidence of the surveillance activities of which the plaintiff was
             aware prior to the trial, the trial court reasonably could have inferred
             that the nature and extent of those activities were such that the defendant
             should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk
             of causing the plaintiff emotional distress; moreover, even though the
             plaintiff did not bear the burden of proving that the defendant actually
             was aware that his activities were causing her emotional distress, the
             defendant’s claim was further undermined by the evidence in the record
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 3

       0 Conn. App. 1                                  ,0                            5
                                     C. W. v. Warzecha
           that supported a finding that, prior to the time of trial, he was in fact
           aware that the plaintiff had experienced emotional distress because of
           his surveillance activities, given evidence that the plaintiff raised her
           middle finger in the direction of the defendant’s security cameras on
           multiple occasions and the defendant’s testimony that the plaintiff com-
           plained to the police and his employer more than fifteen times within a
           nine month period about his surveillance of the plaintiff’s property, from
           which the court reasonably could infer that the plaintiff was distressed
           by the presence of the cameras and which further supported a finding
           that the defendant was made aware or should have realized that his
           repeated conduct was actually causing the plaintiff to experience emo-
           tional distress but that he continued the surveillance nonetheless.
           c. The defendant could not prevail on his argument that the evidence
           presented at trial did not support a finding that the plaintiff’s emotional
           distress was severe enough to result in illness or bodily harm to her;
           the plaintiff was not required to show that her emotional distress resulted
           in bodily injury, but only that such distress might result in illness or
           bodily harm, and the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of her dis-
           tress, including her testimony that she was devastated by the defendant’s
           conduct and that she was afraid to open her windows or her curtains
           or to let her children play outside alone.
           d. The defendant’s argument that the evidence at trial did not support
           a finding that his conduct caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress was
           unavailing, this court having found that, on the basis of the plaintiff’s
           testimony as to the cause of her distress, that it was reasonable for the
           trial court to conclude that the plaintiff had satisfied the element of
           causation in her negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.
       3. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that this court should rule
            on his motion to dismiss that was not explicitly addressed by the trial
            court: because a motion to dismiss is a motion entrusted to the trial
            court, not a reviewing court, and the defendant did not cite any law to
            the contrary, this court was unable to grant the defendant any relief
            with respect to his claim; moreover, even if this court reasonably could
            construe the defendant’s claim as an attempt to challenge the trial court’s
            failure to rule on the motion to dismiss, in light of the trial court’s
            finding for the plaintiff with respect to her claim of negligent infliction
            of emotional distress, it was reasonable for this court to consider the
            trial court’s decision not to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss to
            be the functional equivalent of a denial, which was not reviewable
            on appeal.
               Argued October 16, 2023—officially released April 30, 2024

                                    Procedural History

         Action to recover damages for, inter alia, negligent
       infliction of emotional distress, brought to the Superior
Page 4                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0

         6                          ,0                            0 Conn. App. 1
                                      C. W. v. Warzecha

         Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to
         the court, Rosen, J.; judgment in part for the plaintiff,
         from which the defendant appealed to this court.
         Affirmed.

           Christopher P. Kriesen, for the appellant (defen-
         dant).
           Kenneth R. Slater, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was
         Daniel J. Krisch, for the appellee (plaintiff).

                                           Opinion

            SUAREZ, J. The defendant, Keith J. Warzecha,
         appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor
         of the plaintiff, C. W., on her claim for negligent inflic-
         tion of emotional distress. On appeal, the defendant
         claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by
         asking him questions during the trial, sua sponte, that
         went beyond the scope of what was permissible, (2)
         the evidence presented at trial did not support a finding
         of negligent infliction of emotional distress,1 and (3)
         ‘‘this court [should] grant [his] motion to dismiss when
           1
             In his appellate brief, the defendant sets forth his claims of error as
         follows: (1) ‘‘Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sua sponte asking
         questions of the defendant that went beyond bringing out the facts more
         clearly for itself and instead developed new evidence beyond what either
         party had developed and then improperly based its decision in favor of the
         plaintiff on the third count of her complaint on that evidence’’; (2) ‘‘[d]id
         the trial court improperly base its decision in favor of the plaintiff on the
         third count on findings of fact that were not based upon either the evidence
         introduced at trial or based upon inferences that could not be reasonably
         made based upon the evidence introduced at trial’’; (3) ‘‘[d]id the trial court
         improperly find, where no reasonable finder of fact could find based on the
         evidence, in favor of the plaintiff on the third count’’; and (4) ‘‘[m]ay this
         court grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss when the trial court did not
         act on it?’’
           The defendant’s second and third claims are governed by the same stan-
         dard of review, and they essentially challenge whether the evidence sup-
         ported the court’s findings of fact with respect to each of the essential
         elements of a cause of action sounding in negligent infliction of emotional
         distress. Therefore, we will address these claims together as a singular claim.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 5

       0 Conn. App. 1                       ,0                  7
                             C. W. v. Warzecha

       the trial court did not act on it.’’ We affirm the judgment
       of the trial court.
         The following facts, as found by the court or which
       are otherwise undisputed, and procedural history are
       relevant to our resolution of the defendant’s claims on
       appeal. Since January, 2008, the plaintiff has resided
       with her son and daughter in a home that she owns. The
       plaintiff owns and operates a business that transports
       special needs children to and from school. Between
       2012 and 2015, the plaintiff periodically operated her
       business from her home. In 2016, the plaintiff operated
       her business from a principal location outside of the
       town in which her home is located and had additional
       operations in surrounding towns.
          At all relevant times, the defendant resided in a home
       that was located diagonally across the street from the
       plaintiff’s home. The defendant was employed as an
       agent with the federal Drug Enforcement Administra-
       tion (DEA). Between 2012 and 2015, the defendant
       became concerned that the plaintiff was operating a
       commercial transportation business from her home
       after he observed an increase in the number of cars
       and the amount of traffic in the neighborhood that was
       associated with the plaintiff’s business. He noticed that
       individuals wearing shirts with the logo of the plaintiff’s
       business would park their personal vehicles near the
       plaintiff’s home, drive off in vans associated with the
       plaintiff’s business, and return later in the day to switch
       vehicles. In 2015, the defendant complained to the zon-
       ing department of the town in which he and the plaintiff
       resided and discovered that the plaintiff did not have
       a permit to operate her business from her home.
         After meeting with one or more zoning department
       officials, the defendant began to document his com-
       plaints with photographs, digital recordings, and a
       detailed written timeline of the comings and goings
Page 6                          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       0, 0

         8                           ,0                             0 Conn. App. 1
                                       C. W. v. Warzecha

         of the plaintiff, her family, and others based upon his
         personal surveillance of the plaintiff’s property.2 The
         defendant digitally recorded the plaintiff’s residence
         continuously, twenty-four hours per day, seven days
         per week. The defendant would also take photographs
         of the plaintiff’s property from his vehicle using a zoom
         lens. Although the defendant stopped taking photo-
         graphs of the plaintiff’s property in approximately Janu-
         ary or February, 2016, he continued to conduct video
         surveillance of the plaintiff’s home until the time of trial
         and would regularly review the digital recordings. The
         defendant did not trespass on the plaintiff’s property
         or enter her home to take his photographs or video
         recordings, and all of the plaintiff’s activity that he docu-
         mented occurred in areas open to public view.
            The defendant submitted his documentation, includ-
         ing his digital recordings, photographs, and a surveil-
         lance report of what he believed to be the plaintiff’s
         alleged zoning violation, to the town’s zoning depart-
         ment. On November 18, 2015, a zoning enforcement
         officer issued a cease and desist order to the plaintiff,
         claiming that the operation of her business violated
         the town’s zoning regulations. In response, the plaintiff
         contacted the local police department and complained
         to the defendant’s supervisors at the DEA about his
         surveillance of her property. The plaintiff thereafter
         installed surveillance cameras outside of her home that
         recorded twenty-four hours per day, seven days per
         week, and captured images of the defendant’s home.
         As animosity escalated between the parties, the plaintiff
            2
              The court noted in its memorandum of decision that the defendant’s
         timeline of the plaintiff’s activities on her property ‘‘reflects a near obsessive
         interest in the plaintiff’s daily activities. The defendant apparently watched
         (or [video recorded]) the activities at the plaintiff’s home throughout the
         day, beginning as early as 3 a.m. on some days. Some of the daily logs list
         a dozen or more separate entries, with a minute by minute description of
         [the plaintiff’s] activity, including such innocuous observations as when the
         plaintiff stepped outside her home to smoke a cigarette.’’
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 7

       0 Conn. App. 1                       ,0                 9
                             C. W. v. Warzecha

       would occasionally walk by the defendant’s home and
       raise her middle finger toward his cameras, which she
       knew were recording her.
          The plaintiff commenced the present action by writ
       of summons and complaint on April 29, 2018. In her
       three count complaint, the plaintiff alleged that over a
       two year period between October, 2015, and November,
       2017, the defendant invaded her privacy by visually
       surveilling, photographing, and video recording her res-
       idence; following her in his car; photographing her
       minor child at her home and while he was at a neighbor’s
       house; using a zoom lens to photograph through the
       plaintiff’s front door as a visitor entered; spying on her
       from neighboring properties; peering into her home as
       she watched television; and driving slowly past her
       home. In count one, the plaintiff sought compensatory
       and punitive damages for invasion of privacy and
       alleged that the defendant’s conduct caused her fear,
       anxiety, and severe emotional distress. In count two,
       sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress,
       the plaintiff alleged that such conduct was extreme
       and outrageous, malicious, and intended to cause the
       plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. In count three,
       the plaintiff alleged negligent infliction of emotional
       distress and that the defendant knew or should have
       known that his conduct was likely to cause the plaintiff
       to suffer emotional distress so severe that it could cause
       physical illness. On January 11, 2021, the defendant
       filed an answer to the complaint, denying the plaintiff’s
       material allegations.
          On May 4, 2022, the court, Rosen, J., held a bench
       trial that was conducted remotely. The court heard testi-
       mony from the plaintiff, her son, her friend, and the
       defendant. On August 18, 2022, the court issued a memo-
       randum of decision in which it found in favor of the
       plaintiff on count three of her complaint for negligent
Page 8                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   0, 0

         10                         ,0                          0 Conn. App. 1
                                     C. W. v. Warzecha

         infliction of emotional distress.3 The court reasoned
         that ‘‘[t]he defendant’s conduct over a two year period
         of, inter alia, photographing and [video recording] the
         plaintiff from his car, from across the street, and [from]
         other vantage points, photographing her children and
         the comings and goings of invited guests, his use of 24/
         7 surveillance on her home, driving slowly past her
         home, and documenting in great detail all of her activi-
         ties created an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff
         emotional distress. Her distress was foreseeable, given
         the pervasive nature of the surveillance and monitoring,
         with 24/7 [video recording] continuing to the present
         time. Indeed, the defendant was aware that his conduct
         angered, annoyed, and distressed the plaintiff. For
         example, he submitted into evidence photographs or
         stills from [video recordings] showing the plaintiff rais-
         ing her middle finger at him while being photographed
         or [video recorded]. She further established that the
         distress she experienced was severe enough that it
         might result in illness or bodily harm and was caused
         by the defendant. She characterized the impact of the
         defendant’s conduct on her life as ‘devastating.’ His
         conduct created such a level of fear and anxiety that
         the plaintiff refused to open her windows or curtains
         or let her children play outside alone. She lost her sense
         of privacy and became more socially isolated because
         no one wanted to visit her at her home.’’ The court
         awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in compensatory damages.
         This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural
         history will be set forth as necessary.
                                              I
           The defendant claims, for the first time on appeal, that
         the court abused its discretion by asking him questions
         during the trial, sua sponte, that went beyond the scope
           3
             In its memorandum of decision, the court found in favor of the defendant
         on counts one and two of the complaint.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 9

       0 Conn. App. 1                       ,0                11
                             C. W. v. Warzecha

       of what was permissible. The plaintiff argues that this
       court should not review the defendant’s claim because
       he did not preserve it at trial and did not adequately
       brief it before this court. We agree with the plaintiff.
          ‘‘Our appellate courts, as a general practice, will not
       review claims made for the first time on appeal. . . .
       [A]n appellate court is under no obligation to consider
       a claim that is not distinctly raised at the trial level.
       . . . [B]ecause our review is limited to matters in the
       record, we [also] will not address issues not decided
       by the trial court. . . . [T]o permit a party to raise a
       claim on appeal that has not been raised at trial—after
       it is too late for the trial court or the opposing party
       to address the claim—would encourage trial by ambus-
       cade, which is unfair to both the trial court and the
       opposing party.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation
       marks omitted.) Westry v. Litchfield Visitation Center,
       216 Conn. App. 869, 878–79, 287 A.3d 188 (2022); see
       also Practice Book § 60-5 (court shall not be bound to
       consider claim unless it was distinctly raised at trial).
          Furthermore, ‘‘[i]t is well settled that [w]e are not
       required to review claims that are inadequately briefed.
       . . . We consistently have held that [a]nalysis, rather
       than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to
       avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue
       properly. . . . [F]or this court judiciously and effi-
       ciently to consider claims of error raised on appeal
       . . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their
       arguments in their briefs. We do not reverse the judg-
       ment of a trial court on the basis of challenges to its
       rulings that have not been adequately briefed.’’ (Internal
       quotation marks omitted.) Nowacki v. Nowacki, 129
       Conn. App. 157, 163–64, 20 A.3d 702 (2011). ‘‘Whe[n]
       an issue is merely mentioned, but not briefed beyond
       a bare assertion of the claim, it is deemed to have been
       waived. . . . In addition, mere conclusory assertions
       regarding a claim, with no mention of relevant authority
Page 10                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      0, 0

          12                  ,0                    0 Conn. App. 1
                               C. W. v. Warzecha

          and minimal or no citations from the record, will not
          suffice.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gorski v.
          McIsaac, 156 Conn. App. 195, 209, 112 A.3d 201 (2015).
             At trial, the defendant’s counsel did not object con-
          temporaneously to the court’s questioning of the defen-
          dant, nor did he raise any claim of error related to the
          court’s questions in his posttrial brief. Therefore, the
          defendant’s claim is unpreserved. Moreover, even if he
          had preserved his claim, we would still decline to review
          it because it is inadequately briefed. The defendant has
          not provided any applicable legal authority or meaning-
          ful analysis in his appellate brief to support his claim
          of error. The defendant cites only to a comparative
          study between adversarial and civil law systems to
          baldly assert that the court abused its discretion by
          asking him questions. See Reiner v. Reiner, 214 Conn.
          App. 63, 85, 279 A.3d 788 (2022) (claim inadequately
          briefed when party provides almost no meaningful anal-
          ysis in support of claim and does not include any cita-
          tions to applicable legal authority).
            For these distinct reasons, we decline to review the
          defendant’s first claim of error.
                                      II
            The defendant next claims that the evidence pre-
          sented at trial did not support a finding of negligent
          infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, the defen-
          dant argues that there was no evidence to support the
          court’s findings that (1) his conduct created an unrea-
          sonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional distress,
          (2) the plaintiff’s emotional distress was foreseeable,
          (3) the plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe enough
          that it might result in illness or bodily harm, and (4)
          his conduct caused the plaintiff emotional distress. The
          plaintiff maintains that there was ample evidence to
          support the court’s findings on each element of the
          plaintiff’s cause of action. We agree with the plaintiff.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 11

       0 Conn. App. 1                       ,0                 13
                             C. W. v. Warzecha

          ‘‘To establish a claim of negligent infliction of emo-
       tional distress, a plaintiff must prove the following ele-
       ments: (1) the defendant’s conduct created an unrea-
       sonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional distress;
       (2) the plaintiff’s distress was foreseeable; (3) the emo-
       tional distress was severe enough that it might result
       in illness or bodily harm; and (4) the defendant’s con-
       duct was the cause of the plaintiff’s distress.’’ (Internal
       quotation marks omitted.) Murphy v. Lord Thompson
       Manor, Inc., 105 Conn. App. 546, 552, 938 A.2d 1269,
       cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914, 945 A.2d 976 (2008).
          We review the defendant’s claim under the suffi-
       ciency of the evidence standard of review. ‘‘The stan-
       dards governing our review of a sufficiency of evidence
       claim are well established and rigorous. . . . [W]e
       must determine, in the light most favorable to sustaining
       the [judgment], whether the totality of the evidence,
       including reasonable inferences therefrom, supports
       the [court’s judgment] . . . . In making this determina-
       tion, [t]he evidence must be given the most favorable
       construction in support of the [judgment] of which it
       is reasonably capable. . . . In other words, [i]f the
       [court] could reasonably have reached its conclusion,
       the [judgment] must stand, even if this court disagrees
       with it. . . .
          ‘‘We apply this familiar and deferential scope of
       review, however, in light of the equally familiar principle
       that the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to
       remove the [court’s] function of examining inferences
       and finding facts from the realm of speculation.’’ (Cita-
       tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Carrol
       v. Allstate Ins. Co., 262 Conn. 433, 442, 815 A.2d 119
       (2003). ‘‘We continually have held that in order to pre-
       vail on a claim of negligent infliction of emotional dis-
       tress, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant should
       have realized that its conduct involved an unreasonable
       risk of causing emotional distress and that that distress,
Page 12                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

          14                   ,0                   0 Conn. App. 1
                                C. W. v. Warzecha

          if it were caused, might result in illness or bodily harm.
          . . . This . . . test essentially requires that the fear or
          distress experienced by the plaintiffs be reasonable in
          light of the conduct of the defendants. If such a fear
          were reasonable in light of the defendants’ conduct,
          the defendants should have realized that their conduct
          created an unreasonable risk of causing distress, and
          they, therefore, properly would be held liable. Con-
          versely, if the fear were unreasonable in light of the
          defendants’ conduct, the defendants would not have
          recognized that their conduct could cause this distress
          and, therefore, they would not be liable.’’ (Citations
          omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 446–47.
                                       A
             The defendant first asserts that the evidence pre-
          sented at trial did not support a finding that his docu-
          mentation of the plaintiff’s daily activities created an
          unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional
          distress. The defendant argues that ‘‘no reasonable fact
          finder could find [that his] documentation of activity
          open to public view created an unreasonable risk of
          causing the plaintiff severe emotional distress. She had
          no testimony to show that documentation of such activ-
          ity is likely to cause severe emotional distress.’’ Also,
          he contends that ‘‘[t]he plaintiff introduced no evidence
          that [she] knew of the extent of the defendant’s docu-
          mentation.’’ The defendant urges this court to conclude
          that any ‘‘conduct she learned of after the fact and/or
          at trial—such as the documentation in the emails from
          the defendant to the town—cannot support her claim.’’
          We are not persuaded.
             Initially, we note that the defendant’s arguments sug-
          gest that the court based its findings on his ‘‘documenta-
          tion’’ of the plaintiff’s activities and occurrences at her
          home. In this subsection of his claim, he appears to use
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 13

       0 Conn. App. 1                       ,0                  15
                             C. W. v. Warzecha

       the word ‘‘documentation’’ to refer to ‘‘the documenta-
       tion in the emails from the defendant to the town
       . . . .’’ Our review of the court’s memorandum of deci-
       sion, however, reflects that the court did not refer to
       these emails in concluding that the defendant had cre-
       ated an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff emo-
       tional distress. The court, in broad terms, based its
       finding on ‘‘[t]he defendant’s conduct over a two year
       period of, inter alia, photographing and [video
       recording] the plaintiff from his car, from across the
       street, and [from] other vantage points, photographing
       her children and the comings and goings of invited
       guests, his use of 24/7 surveillance on her home, driving
       slowly past her home, and documenting in great detail
       all of her activities . . . .’’ This evidence plainly encom-
       passed conduct of which the plaintiff was aware prior
       to the time of trial.
         Moreover, although the plaintiff, prior to the time of
       the trial, may not have been aware of the full extent of
       the defendant’s extremely detailed documentation of
       her daily activities, her testimony supports a finding that
       the distress she experienced arose from the defendant’s
       surveillance activities that were well-known to her over
       the course of a two year period. In addition to the
       plaintiff’s testimony concerning her emotional reaction
       to these activities, the court readily could infer that
       such distress was reasonable given the pervasive nature
       and extent of the defendant’s surveillance activities.
         At trial, the plaintiff testified to the following conduct
       by the defendant. On October 9, 2015, the defendant
       used what the plaintiff described to be a large lensed
       camera to take photographs of her friends that visited
       her home. On October 20, 2015, the defendant parked
       his motor vehicle in a wooded area adjacent to her
       house and took photographs of her residence. On Octo-
       ber 26, 2015, the defendant attempted to follow the
Page 14                       CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  0, 0

          16                        ,0                         0 Conn. App. 1
                                     C. W. v. Warzecha

          plaintiff to her office. On November 25, 2015, the defen-
          dant photographed the plaintiff’s son while he was vis-
          iting a neighbor’s home.4 On December 4, 2015, the
          defendant used a camera with a zoom lens to photo-
          graph a visitor who was entering the plaintiff’s home.
          On December 9, 2015, the defendant was watching the
          plaintiff’s house from a wooded area across from her
          property. By December 27, 2015, the defendant had
          been warned by the local police to leave the plaintiff
          alone as he had scared her family and friends. On March
          31, 2016, the defendant placed a ‘‘spy camera’’ in the
          woods across the street from the plaintiff’s front porch.
          On one occasion, the defendant used a camcorder on
          a tripod to record the plaintiff and her friend stretching
          for Pilates outside of her home. On August 1, 2016, the
          defendant spied on the plaintiff from her neighbor’s
          backyard and the plaintiff called the police to report
          the defendant. On November 10, 2017, the defendant
          drove slowly past the plaintiff’s house, parked his vehi-
          cle across from her home, and thereafter followed her
          when she went to the grocery store. On November 30,
          2017, the defendant parked at the bottom of the plain-
          tiff’s driveway and watched the plaintiff’s residence.

             On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude
          that there was sufficient evidence for the court to find
          that the defendant’s conduct created an unreasonable
          risk of causing the plaintiff emotional distress.

                                             B

             The defendant next argues that the evidence pre-
          sented at trial could not support a finding that the plain-
          tiff’s distress was foreseeable. Specifically, the defen-
          dant claims that the plaintiff ‘‘introduced no evidence
            4
              The plaintiff’s son also testified that the defendant had photographed
          him while he was visiting a neighbor’s home.
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 15

       0 Conn. App. 1                                ,0                           17
                                    C. W. v. Warzecha

       that the defendant knew she was distressed due to his
       documentation of her activity.’’5 We disagree.
          The defendant’s argument assigns a higher burden
       of proof to the plaintiff than that which is required by
       the law of this state. Our Supreme Court has previously
       stated that the plaintiff must prove that ‘‘the defendant
       should have realized that [his] conduct involved an
       unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress . . . .’’
       (Emphasis added.) Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra,
       262 Conn. 446. The law does not require that the plaintiff
       prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of her
       distress, only that he should have realized that his con-
       duct involved an unreasonable risk of causing the plain-
       tiff emotional distress, to satisfy this element of her
       claim. For this reason, the claim fails.
          In part II A of this opinion, we discussed the surveil-
       lance activities of which the plaintiff was aware prior
       to the trial. The court reasonably could have inferred
       that the nature and extent of these activities were such
       that the defendant should have realized that his conduct
       involved an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff
       emotional distress. Moreover, even though the plaintiff
       did not bear the burden of proving that the defendant
       actually was aware that his activities were causing her
       emotional distress, the defendant’s claim is further
       undermined by the evidence in the record that supports
       a finding that, prior to the time of trial, he was in fact
       aware that the plaintiff had experienced emotional dis-
       tress because of his surveillance activities. Specifically,
       the plaintiff submitted exhibits from the defendant’s
       digital recordings that depicted her raising her middle
       finger in the direction of his security cameras on multi-
       ple occasions, conduct from which the court reasonably
         5
           The defendant argues that ‘‘[e]xamples of such evidence . . . would
       include a statement from the plaintiff to the defendant that she was experi-
       encing distress, a cease and desist letter from counsel with such an assertion,
       or the defendant actually witnessing such distress.’’
Page 16                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

          18                   ,0                    0 Conn. App. 1
                                C. W. v. Warzecha

          could infer that the plaintiff was distressed by the pres-
          ence of the cameras. In addition, the defendant testified
          that the plaintiff complained to the police and his
          employer ‘‘over fifteen times within [a] nine month
          period’’ about his surveillance of the plaintiff’s property.
          This evidence further supports a finding that the defen-
          dant was made aware or should have realized that his
          repeated conduct was actually causing the plaintiff to
          experience emotional distress but that he continued
          the surveillance nonetheless.
             The defendant’s claim amounts to a mischaracteriza-
          tion of the plaintiff’s burden of proof. Furthermore, on
          the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that
          there is ample evidence in the record to support the
          court’s finding that the plaintiff’s distress was foresee-
          able.
                                       C
             The defendant further argues that the evidence pre-
          sented at trial did not support a finding that the plain-
          tiff’s emotional distress was severe enough to result in
          illness or bodily harm to her. Specifically, the defendant
          claims that the plaintiff ‘‘had no expert medical testi-
          mony to establish [that] she suffered emotional distress,
          let alone emotional distress severe enough that it might
          result in illness or bodily harm. . . . She offered no
          testimony that might meet her high burden of proof (for
          example, evidence that she was hospitalized, unable to
          work, or unable to parent her minor children).’’ We are
          not persuaded.
            The defendant’s argument, like the argument he
          raised in part II B of this opinion, misconstrues the
          burden of proof required to prove this element of a
          negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. Our
          Supreme Court has stated that, ‘‘[t]his court . . . in
          Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone Co.,
          [175 Conn. 337, 344, 398 A.2d 1180 (1978)], concluded
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 17

       0 Conn. App. 1                       ,0                 19
                             C. W. v. Warzecha

       that there is no logical reason for making a distinction,
       for purposes of determining liability, between those
       cases where the emotional distress results in bodily
       injury and those cases where there is emotional distress
       only. . . . The only requirement is that the distress
       might result in illness or bodily harm.’’ (Citation omit-
       ted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omit-
       ted.) Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 262 Conn. 448;
       see also Perodeau v. Hartford, 259 Conn. 729, 749, 792
       A.2d 752 (2002) (‘‘recovery for unintentionally-caused
       emotional distress does not depend on proof of either an
       ensuing physical injury or a risk of harm from physical
       impact’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).

          The plaintiff in Carrol brought an action against his
       homeowners insurer for, inter alia, negligent infliction
       of emotional distress in connection with the insurer’s
       course of action in responding to a claim for insurance
       benefits following a fire at his home. See Carrol v.
       Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 262 Conn. 434–35. Our Supreme
       Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that
       the plaintiff had suffered distress that was severe
       enough to result in illness or bodily harm to him because
       the plaintiff testified that ‘‘he could not sleep, had fre-
       quent nightmares, had a loss of appetite, and experi-
       enced depression and a sense of isolation from his
       community because of the investigation [into the cause
       of the fire conducted by the insurer].’’ Id., 448. In the
       present case, the plaintiff presented similar evidence
       of distress, as she testified that she was ‘‘devastat[ed]’’
       by the defendant’s conduct. She stated: ‘‘I can’t open
       my windows. I can’t open my curtains. My children
       can’t play outside without me being right there. I can’t
       go to the police anymore. . . . I’ve planted trees. . . .
       I have no privacy. None. No one wants to come over
       [to] my house. . . . And it’s all in the name of a zoning
       violation . . . .’’
Page 18                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

          20                   ,0                    0 Conn. App. 1
                                C. W. v. Warzecha

            On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude
          that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding
          that the plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe enough
          that it might result in illness or bodily harm.
                                       D
            The defendant’s final argument with respect to this
          claim is that the evidence presented at trial did not
          support a finding that the defendant’s conduct caused
          the plaintiff’s emotional distress. Echoing an argument
          discussed in part II C of this opinion, the defendant
          argues that the plaintiff ‘‘had no medical expert testify to
          establish a causal connection. She offered no testimony
          that might meet her high burden of proof (for example,
          evidence that she was hospitalized, unable to work,
          or unable to parent her minor children).’’ We are not
          persuaded.
              As previously stated in this opinion, the plaintiff must
          prove that the defendant’s conduct created an unrea-
          sonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional distress.
          In Carrol, our Supreme Court found that there was
          sufficient evidence of causation for a finding of negli-
          gent infliction of emotional distress based upon the
          plaintiff’s testimony that the defendant’s actions were
          ‘‘ ‘devastating’ and the cause of his emotional turmoil.’’
          Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 262 Conn. 448. In the
          present case, the plaintiff similarly testified that the
          effect of the defendant’s conduct was devastating. In
          its memorandum of decision, the court expressly
          referred to this testimony. The court stated that ‘‘[the
          plaintiff] characterized the impact of the defendant’s
          conduct on her life as ‘devastating.’ His conduct created
          such a level of fear and anxiety that the plaintiff refused
          to open her windows or curtains or let her children
          play outside alone.’’ Based on the plaintiff’s testimony
          as to the cause of her distress, it was reasonable for
          the court to conclude that the plaintiff had satisfied
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 19

       0 Conn. App. 1                       ,0                   21
                             C. W. v. Warzecha

       the element of causation in her negligent infliction of
       emotional distress claim.
         On the basis of our careful review of the record,
       viewed in the manner most favorable to sustaining the
       judgment, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence
       in the record to support the court’s judgment in favor
       of the plaintiff with respect to each of the essential
       elements for a cause of action sounding in negligent
       infliction of emotional distress.
                                    III
          The defendant’s final claim is that ‘‘this court [should]
       grant [his] motion to dismiss when the trial court did
       not act on it.’’ Specifically, the defendant argues that
       this court, on appeal, should rule on his motion to
       dismiss that he represents was raised at the close of
       the plaintiff’s case-in-chief and in his posttrial brief. The
       plaintiff contends that the court implicitly and correctly
       denied the defendant’s motion by finding for the plain-
       tiff in its final decision. We are not persuaded by the
       defendant’s arguments.
          The following additional facts and procedural history
       are relevant to our disposition of the defendant’s claim.
       At the close of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the defen-
       dant’s counsel stated: ‘‘[B]efore I call [the defendant],
       I do have an oral motion for a directed verdict, Your
       Honor. I understand it’s a courtside trial, but I think I
       can still move for a directed verdict.’’ The court then
       reserved judgment on the defendant’s motion for a
       directed verdict and articulated that ‘‘this is a bench
       trial and we’re [going to] discuss at the conclusion of
       evidence whether the parties wish to have closing argu-
       ments or submit posttrial briefs. And you can address
       the legal issues at that time.’’ At the conclusion of the
       evidence, the court ordered the parties to submit post-
       trial briefs. In the defendant’s posttrial brief, he argued,
Page 20                          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                        0, 0

          22                           ,0                             0 Conn. App. 1
                                         C. W. v. Warzecha

          for the first time, that the court should grant the defen-
          dant’s ‘‘motion for dismissal’’ pursuant to Practice Book
          § 15-8. The court did not address the defendant’s motion
          in its memorandum of decision but found in favor of
          the plaintiff with respect to her claim of negligent inflic-
          tion of emotional distress.6

              Practice Book § 15-8, titled ‘‘Dismissal in Court Cases
          for Failure To Make Out a Prima Facie Case,’’ provides:
          ‘‘If, on the trial of any issue of fact in a civil matter
          tried to the court, the plaintiff has produced evidence
          and rested, a defendant may move for judgment of dis-
          missal, and the judicial authority may grant such
          motion if the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima
          facie case. The defendant may offer evidence in the
          event the motion is not granted, without having
          reserved the right to do so and to the same extent as
          if the motion had not been made.’’ (Emphasis added.)
          A motion to dismiss is a motion entrusted to the trial
          court, not a reviewing court, and the defendant does
          not cite any law to the contrary. Our Supreme Court
          has explained that ‘‘[a] motion for judgment of dismissal
          must be made by the defendant and decided by the
          court after the plaintiff has rested his case, but before
          the defendant produces evidence.’’ Cormier v. Fugere,
          185 Conn. 1, 2, 440 A.2d 820 (1981). Thus, we are unable
             6
               While this appeal was pending, the defendant filed a motion for articula-
          tion in which he asked the trial court to rule on his motion to dismiss. The
          defendant, overlooking the fact that his counsel raised what he characterized
          as ‘‘a motion for a directed verdict’’ at the close of the plaintiff’s case-in-
          chief, represented that the trial court had failed to rule on his motion to
          dismiss ‘‘at trial . . . and after trial.’’ The defendant also stated in his motion
          for articulation that, ‘‘[a]lthough the [trial] court’s ruling on the motion to
          dismiss may appear to be implicit given the trial court’s . . . decision [in
          favor of the plaintiff with respect to count three], any appellate review of
          the decision requires an articulation.’’ The trial court, thereafter, did not
          respond to the motion for articulation, and the defendant did not take any
          further action in this court to compel the trial court to rule on the motion
          for articulation.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 21

       0 Conn. App. 1                       ,0                  23
                             C. W. v. Warzecha

       to grant the defendant any relief with respect to his
       claim that this court should grant the motion to dismiss.
          Even if we reasonably may construe the defendant’s
       claim as an attempt to challenge the trial court’s failure
       to rule on the motion to dismiss, the claim is not review-
       able on appeal. This court has explained that ‘‘[t]he
       statutory corollary to [Practice Book § 15-8] is General
       Statutes § 52-210, which provides: If, on the trial of any
       issue of fact in a civil action, the plaintiff has produced
       his evidence and rested his cause, the defendant may
       move for judgment as in case of nonsuit, and the court
       may grant such motion, if in its opinion the plaintiff
       has failed to make out a prima facie case. We note that
       [a] motion for judgment of dismissal has replaced the
       former motion for nonsuit . . . for failure to make out
       a prima facie case. . . .
          ‘‘In the context of the former motion for nonsuit for
       failure to make out a prima facie case, our Supreme
       Court repeatedly has held, in a body of century-old
       cases, that the denial of such a motion is not reviewable
       on appeal. For example, in Bennett v. Agricultural Ins.
       Co., [51 Conn. 504, 512 (1884)], in an appeal following
       a jury trial, the court held that [t]he refusal of the court
       to grant the motion for nonsuit, being [a] matter com-
       mitted to the discretion of the court, is not reviewable
       on application of the defendant. The practice in Con-
       necticut, unlike that of some other states, is regulated
       by statute. [General Statutes (1875 Rev.) tit. 19, c. XIII,
       §§ 3, 4.] This statute provides for a nonsuit, not when
       all the evidence on both sides has been received, but
       when the plaintiff on his part has submitted his evidence
       and rested. If the court shall be of [the] opinion that a
       prima facie case is not made out, the court may (not
       must) grant a nonsuit. If granted the plaintiff has his
       remedy; if refused the defendant has no remedy on that
       account, but must go on with the trial and submit the
       case to the jury, either on the plaintiff’s evidence alone,
Page 22                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

          24                   ,0                    0 Conn. App. 1
                                C. W. v. Warzecha

          if he chooses, or upon his own evidence as well . . . .
          Similarly, in Rice [v. Foley, 98 Conn. 372, 119 A. 353
          (1923)], in an appeal following a trial to the court, the
          court held that [t]he refusal of the court to grant [a]
          defendant’s motion for a nonsuit is not appealable. [Id.],
          373. Our research has not revealed any authority that
          expressly undermines the reviewability holdings of
          Bennett, Rice, and the numerous cases of their ilk.’’
          (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quota-
          tion marks omitted.) Moutinho v. 500 North Avenue,
          LLC, 191 Conn. App. 608, 614–16, 216 A.3d 667, cert.
          denied, 333 Conn. 928, 218 A.3d 68 (2019).
             In the present case, the court did not expressly rule
          on the defendant’s motion to dismiss that was raised
          in his posttrial brief, and the court found in favor of
          the plaintiff with respect to her claim of negligent inflic-
          tion of emotional distress. In light of that finding, it is
          reasonable to consider the court’s decision not to grant
          the defendant’s motion to dismiss to be the functional
          equivalent of a denial. Therefore, just as the court con-
          cluded in Moutinho, we conclude that the court’s func-
          tional denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss is
          not reviewable on appeal.
            The judgment is affirmed.
            In this opinion the other judges concurred.