Elliot v. Staron
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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. ****************************************************** E. J. ELLIOTT ET AL. v. RAYMOND STARON, EXECUTOR (ESTATE OF PAULINE M. STARON) (SC 16209) Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Flynn, Js. Argued November 1 officially released December 12, 2000 Counsel Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Wesley W. Horton and, on the brief, Andre Nagy, for the appellant (defendant). Ridgely Brown, with whom, on the brief, was Daniel Shepro, for the appellees (plaintiffs). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Raymond Staron, the executor of the estate of Pauline M. Staron, appeals, pursuant to our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs, E. J. Elliott and John M. Elliott, on their complaint and on the defendant s counterclaim. Elliott v. Staron, 54 Conn. App. 632, 736 A.2d 632 (1999). The trial court had determined that the defendant (1) breached the lease between the par- ties, (2) tortiously interfered with the plaintiffs business relations and (3) violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes ยง 42-110a et seq. We granted the defendant s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court s judgment to the extent that the judgment was based on a finding that the defendant had breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing? Elliott v. Staron, 251 Conn. 911, 739 A.2d 1247 (1999). The gravamen of the defendant s claim in this appeal is that the trial court s finding impermissibly applied the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to an obligation to renegotiate the lease between the parties, rather than to the enforcement of the lease. After reviewing the entire record on appeal, and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that the case does not squarely present that issue. We therefore conclude that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
