section 52-564 statutory theft in Connecticut

2002Statutory theft under § 52-564 `is synonymous with larceny under General Statutes § 53a-119 .' Discover Leasing, Inc. v. Murphy , 33 Conn. App. 303 , 309 , 521 635 A.2d 843 (1993), citing Lauder v. Peck , 11 Conn. App. 161 , 165 , 526 A.2d 539 (1987).

2002Statutory theft under § 52-564 `is synonymous with larceny under General Statutes § 53a-119 .' Discover Leasing, Inc. v. Murphy , 33 Conn. App. 303 , 309 , 521 635 A.2d 843 (1993), citing Lauder v. Peck , 11 Conn. App. 161 , 165 , 526 A.2d 539 (1987).

2010Co., 279 Conn. 745, 771 , 905 A.2d 623 (2006).

2010Co., 279 Conn. 745, 771 , 905 A.2d 623 (2006).

2026In Second Injury Fund v. Lupachino, 45 Conn. App. 324, 346 , 695 A.2d 1072 (1997), [our Appellate Court] held that [§] 31-290c is the legislative response to those who have abused or may be abusing the humanitarian purpose of the act by taking advantage of it by fraudulent means.

2026In Second Injury Fund v. Lupachino, 45 Conn. App. 324, 346 , 695 A.2d 1072 (1997), [our Appellate Court] held that [§] 31-290c is the legislative response to those who have abused or may be abusing the humanitarian purpose of the act by taking advantage of it by fraudulent means.

2000Lawson v. Whitney Frame Shop , 42 Conn. App. 599 , 604 (1996).

1785Pursuant to § 53a-119 , a person commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds such property from an owner . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lawson v. Whitey's Frame Shop , 42 Conn. App. 599 , 605-06 , 682 A.2d 1016 (1996), rev'd on other grounds, 241 Conn. 678 , 697 A.2d 1137 (1997).

1998Pursuant to § 53a-119, ‘ [a] person commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or [withholds] such property from an owner.’ By comparison, ‘[conversion is an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner’s rights.’ Discover Leasing, Inc. v. Murphy, supra, 309 , citing Devitt v. Manulik, 176 Conn. 657, 660 , 410 A.2d 465 (1979).

1998Pursuant to § 53a-119, ‘ [a] person commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or [withholds] such property from an owner.’ By comparison, ‘[conversion is an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner’s rights.’ Discover Leasing, Inc. v. Murphy, supra, 309 , citing Devitt v. Manulik, 176 Conn. 657, 660 , 410 A.2d 465 (1979).

2021Slotnik v. Considine, 525 U.S. 1017 , 119 S. Ct. 542 , 142 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1998).

2021Slotnik v. Considine, 525 U.S. 1017 , 119 S. Ct. 542 , 142 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1998).

2017Hospital of Central Connecticut v. Neurosurgical Associates, P.C. , 139 Conn.App. 778 , 788-89, 57 A.3d 794 (2012).

2017Hospital of Central Connecticut v. Neurosurgical Associates, P.C. , 139 Conn.App. 778 , 788-89, 57 A.3d 794 (2012).

2016This rendered inapt our reliance on Alaimo v. Royer , supra, 188 Conn. 36 , 448 A.2d 207 , in which this court concluded that the terms "punitive damages" and "exemplary damages" are "merely alternate labels for the same remedy," which is distinct from statutory provisions authorizing multiple damages, such as treble damages for theft under § 52-564. 12 Id. at 42-43, 448 A.2d 207 .

2016This rendered inapt our reliance on Alaimo v. Royer , supra, 188 Conn. 36 , 448 A.2d 207 , in which this court concluded that the terms "punitive damages" and "exemplary damages" are "merely alternate labels for the same remedy," which is distinct from statutory provisions authorizing multiple damages, such as treble damages for theft under § 52-564. 12 Id. at 42-43, 448 A.2d 207 .

2016Indeed, in Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co ., 275 Conn. 72 , 881 A.2d 139 (2005), this court followed Alaimo and concluded that an arbitrator had the authority to award statutory double damages for unpaid wages under General Statutes § 31-72 ; id. at 92, 98-99, 881 A.2d 139 ; despite the submission providing that he was "not authorized or entitled to include as part of any award ... special, exemplary or punitive damages or amounts in the nature of special, exemplary or punitive damages regardless of the nature or form of the claim or grievance that has been submitted to arbitration ...." (Emp

2016Indeed, in Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co ., 275 Conn. 72 , 881 A.2d 139 (2005), this court followed Alaimo and concluded that an arbitrator had the authority to award statutory double damages for unpaid wages under General Statutes § 31-72 ; id. at 92, 98-99, 881 A.2d 139 ; despite the submission providing that he was "not authorized or entitled to include as part of any award ... special, exemplary or punitive damages or amounts in the nature of special, exemplary or punitive damages regardless of the nature or form of the claim or grievance that has been submitted to arbitration ...." (Emp

2012Section 52-564 provides: “Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble his damages.” We consistently have held that “[s]tatutory theft under § 52-564 is synonymous with larceny under General Statutes § 53a-119.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Blackwell v. Mahmood, 120 Conn. App. 690, 700 , 992 A.2d 1219 (2010); see also Lauder v. Peck, 11 Conn. App. 161, 165 , 526 A.2d 539 (1987) (“[t]he word ‘steals’ as used in ... § 52-564 is synonymous with the definition of larceny under . . . § 53a-119”).

2012Section 52-564 provides: “Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble his damages.” We consistently have held that “[s]tatutory theft under § 52-564 is synonymous with larceny under General Statutes § 53a-119.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Blackwell v. Mahmood, 120 Conn. App. 690, 700 , 992 A.2d 1219 (2010); see also Lauder v. Peck, 11 Conn. App. 161, 165 , 526 A.2d 539 (1987) (“[t]he word ‘steals’ as used in ... § 52-564 is synonymous with the definition of larceny under . . . § 53a-119”).

2010In this opinion the other justices concurred. 1 We granted the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s application of the ‘clear and convincing’ standard of proof to claims brought pursuant to General Statutes § 52-564?” Stuart v. Stuart, 290 Conn. 920 , 966 A.2d 237 (2009). 2 General Statutes § 52-564 provides: “Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble his damages.” 3 Kenneth' J.

2010In this opinion the other justices concurred. 1 We granted the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s application of the ‘clear and convincing’ standard of proof to claims brought pursuant to General Statutes § 52-564?” Stuart v. Stuart, 290 Conn. 920 , 966 A.2d 237 (2009). 2 General Statutes § 52-564 provides: “Any person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble his damages.” 3 Kenneth' J.

2008As we discuss in part III of this opinion, the trial court concluded that both the claims relating to Nancy’s use and enjoyment of the insurance proceeds in the years following 1993, and the claims relating to her receipt of Steven’s interest in the property transferred to her in 2001, were time barred. 25 On appeal, the plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s decision with respect to Nancy only. 26 “This court has held that statutory theft under § 52-564 is synonymous with [the crime of] larceny as defined in ... § 53a-119.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mystic Color Lab, Inc. v. Auction

2008As we discuss in part III of this opinion, the trial court concluded that both the claims relating to Nancy’s use and enjoyment of the insurance proceeds in the years following 1993, and the claims relating to her receipt of Steven’s interest in the property transferred to her in 2001, were time barred. 25 On appeal, the plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s decision with respect to Nancy only. 26 “This court has held that statutory theft under § 52-564 is synonymous with [the crime of] larceny as defined in ... § 53a-119.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mystic Color Lab, Inc. v. Auction

2007Cf. Howard v. MacDonald, 270 Conn. 111, 130 , 851 A.2d 1142 (2004) (declining to address issue as to requisite standard of proof under § 52-564 because, even under heightened standard, jury reasonably could have found that defendant committed statutory theft). 13 Mystic argues that the element of intent required for statutory theft is a question of fact that should be subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.

2007Cf. Howard v. MacDonald, 270 Conn. 111, 130 , 851 A.2d 1142 (2004) (declining to address issue as to requisite standard of proof under § 52-564 because, even under heightened standard, jury reasonably could have found that defendant committed statutory theft). 13 Mystic argues that the element of intent required for statutory theft is a question of fact that should be subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.

2002A "conversion is an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Discover Leasing, Inc. v. Murphy , 33 Conn. App. 303 , 309 , 635 A.2d 843 (1993) "Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Polivy v. Air One, Inc. , 46 Conn. App. 573 , 577 , 70 A.2d 71 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 937 , 702 A.2d 644 (1997) To prove a prima facie case of conversion, one must establish (1) that the property be

2002A "conversion is an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Discover Leasing, Inc. v. Murphy , 33 Conn. App. 303 , 309 , 635 A.2d 843 (1993) "Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Polivy v. Air One, Inc. , 46 Conn. App. 573 , 577 , 70 A.2d 71 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 937 , 702 A.2d 644 (1997) To prove a prima facie case of conversion, one must establish (1) that the property be

2002A "conversion is an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Discover Leasing, Inc. v. Murphy , 33 Conn. App. 303 , 309 , 635 A.2d 843 (1993) "Conversion occurs when one, without authorization, assumes and exercises ownership over property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Polivy v. Air One, Inc. , 46 Conn. App. 573 , 577 , 70 A.2d 71 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 937 , 702 A.2d 644 (1997) To prove a prima facie case of conversion, one must establish (1) that the property be

2001Our Supreme Court has noted that summary judgment is "particularly inappropriate where the inferences which the parties seek to have drawn deal with questions of motive, intent and subjective feelings and reactions." Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp. , 229 Conn. 99 , 111 , 639 A.2d 507 (1994).

2001Our Supreme Court has noted that summary judgment is "particularly inappropriate where the inferences which the parties seek to have drawn deal with questions of motive, intent and subjective feelings and reactions." Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp. , 229 Conn. 99 , 111 , 639 A.2d 507 (1994).

2000Benavides v. Benavides , 11 Conn. App. 150 , 154 (1987) COUNT FOUR: THEFT/CONVERSION The plaintiff seeks treble damages pursuant to General Statutes § 52-564 which provides that "[a]ny person who steals any property of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay the owner treble his damages." Statutory theft under § 52-564 "is synonymous with larceny under General Statutes § 53a-119 ." Discover Leasing, Inc v. Murphy , 33 Conn. App. 303 , 309 , (1993), citing Lauder v. Peck , 11 Conn. App. 161 , 165 , 526 A.2d 539 (1987).

2000"Conversion occurs when one assumes and exercises the right of ownership over property belonging to another, without authorization and to the exclusion of the owner's rights." Plikus v. Plikus , 26 Comm. App. 174, 180, 599 A.2d 392 (1991).

1997Pursuant to a decision released on July 15, 1997, our Supreme Court, while reversing the Appellate Court with respect to the CUTPA counts of plaintiffs' complaint, affirmed the Appellate Court with respect to the conversion counts in the Lawson case. 241 Conn. at 691 .

1785Pursuant to § 53a-119 , a person commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds such property from an owner . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lawson v. Whitey's Frame Shop , 42 Conn. App. 599 , 605-06 , 682 A.2d 1016 (1996), rev'd on other grounds, 241 Conn. 678 , 697 A.2d 1137 (1997).

1785Pursuant to § 53a-119 , a person commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds such property from an owner . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lawson v. Whitey's Frame Shop , 42 Conn. App. 599 , 605-06 , 682 A.2d 1016 (1996), rev'd on other grounds, 241 Conn. 678 , 697 A.2d 1137 (1997).