Crone v. Connelly
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. ****************************************************** LEONARD L. CRONE v. JAMES A. CONNELLY ET AL. (SC 16965) Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js. Argued January 8 officially released February 3, 2004 Leonard M. Crone, with whom, on the brief, was Doreen M. Alegi, for the appellant (plaintiff). Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, associate city attorney, for the appellees (defendant Lester H. Garrett et al.). Arthur C. Laske III, assistant city attorney, for the appellee (named defendant). Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Leonard L. Crone, a teacher in the Bridgeport public school system, brought an action for violation of his constitutional rights, false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution, against the defendants, James A. Connelly, the superintendent of the Bridgeport school system, Lester H. Garrett, a detective in the Bridgeport police department, Richard Mancini, a sergeant in the Bridgeport police department, and Thomas Sweeney, the police chief for the city of Bridgeport. The trial court granted the defendants motion for a directed verdict, and rendered judgment for the defendants accordingly. On the plaintiff s appeal to the Appellate Court, that court affirmed the trial court s judgment. Crone v. Connelly, 74 Conn. App. 788, 802, 813 A.2d 1084 (2003). We granted the plaintiff s petition for certification for appeal limited to the following issue: Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly granted the defendants motion for a directed verdict? Crone v. Connelly, 263 Conn. 902, 819 A.2d 836 (2003). This certified appeal followed. Our examination of the record and briefs, and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the Appellate Court s concise and well reasoned opinion. Because that opinion fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Miller s Pond Co. v. Rocque, 263 Conn. 692, 697, 822 A.2d 238 (2003). The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
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.
