DocketNumber: No. 95-0144241
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5772
Judges: LEWIS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/16/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint, and also filed nine special defenses. The defendants asserted, among other things, that since there was no written agreement between the parties regarding architectural services, the plaintiff could not enforce the alleged agreement because of General Statutes §
The defendants have now moved (#141; short calendar 5-6-96) for summary judgment both as to the plaintiff's complaint, and the first count of their counterclaim on the basis that because the plaintiff concedes that his agreement with the defendants was not in writing, violations of the HSSA and CUTPA have been established as a matter of law. A summary judgment may be granted only if the "pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Practice Book § 384.
The affidavits submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment claim that the plaintiff came to their home to solicit them to purchase his services, and that they have never been to the plaintiff's place of business. In opposing summary judgment, the plaintiff filed an affidavit contending that he did not go to the defendants' home to solicit their purchase of his services, but rather went in response to a request from an attorney who claimed to represent the defendants. The plaintiff further indicates that he did not solicit business from the defendants when he responded to the request by the lawyer, but that the defendants requested that he prepare drawings for the renovation of their home.
The underlying issue in the resolution of this motion for summary judgment is whether the architectural services allegedly provided by the plaintiff fall within the purview of a home solicitation sale. General Statutes §
The affidavit submitted by each of the defendants claims that the plaintiff came to their home "to attempt to solicit my purchase of his services." However, the plaintiff's affidavit asserts that he did not go to the home of the defendants in an attempt to solicit their purchase of his services, but went there at the request of an attorney who said he was representing the defendants who needed his architectural services. Thus, the affidavits clearly present genuine issues of material fact, which CT Page 5774 in turn requires the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
In addition, there are no appellate cases regarding the applicability of the HSSA to architectural services. One superior court decision refused to dismiss a case on those grounds. Hopperv. Hite, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. 091936 (September 9, 1988, Cioffi, J., 14 Conn. L. Rpt. 41). Furthermore, the Home Improvement Act, which specifically refers to the Home Solicitation Sales Act, was recently amended to exempt licensed professionals. General Statutes §§
Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.
So Ordered.
Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 16th day of August, 1996.
William B. Lewis, Judge