author: McLACHLAN, J.

text:
    CATHERINE LEDERLE v. STEVAN SPIVEY
    (AC 28838)
    McLachlan, Lavine and West, Js.
    Argued January 6
    officially released March 17, 2009

      Richard G. Kent, for the appellant (defendant).

      Gary I. Cohen, for the appellee (plaintiff).

      Mark H. Henderson, guardian ad litem for the minor child.
   Opinion

McLACHLAN, J.

In this dissolution of marriage action, the defendant, Stevan Spivey, appeals from the judgment of the trial court. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) permitted the plaintiff, Catherine Lederle, to relocate with their minor child to Virginia, (2) ordered him to pay a penalty for missed visitations, (3) awarded sole legal and physical custody to the plaintiff and (4) ordered him to maintain life insurance beyond the child’s attainment of the age of majority. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The court reasonably found the following relevant facts. The parties were married in Darien on December 31, 1998. The parties had one minor child, bom April 29, 2000. The parties’ marriage had broken down irretrievably, and there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

The plaintiff was employed in marketing and sales, and her income was $210,000 in 2006. Approximately six months after beginning work with her current employer, Lexmark, in 2004, the plaintiffs sales territory was changed from Danbury to Washington, D.C., Virginia, West Virginia and North Carolina. The plaintiff needed to be on-site during the sales process to facilitate the sale, to consult with customers and to observe the customer’s work flow. The plaintiff also needed to be available to her customers after the installation of hardware to ensure that their systems functioned and to monitor for upgrades and the integration of new products. The plaintiff believed that if she was not permitted to relocate to Richmond, Virginia, she would be unable to compete for advancement in leadership and management roles within the company. If and when the plaintiff achieved a management position, she would be able to earn commissions on the basis of the sales of her subordinates.

The defendant held jobs with at least eight different companies since the parties married. At the time of judgment, the defendant worked as a sales representative and operated out of a home office. The defendant had two children, ages fifteen and nineteen, from his first marriage. The defendant’s first divorce was acrimonious and led to disputes over the payment of child support and alimony during his second marriage. The defendant discussed with several people different ways of hiding income from his first wife as a method of reducing his financial obligations to her. Prior to trial, the defendant had been depositing his paycheck into his mother’s bank account because, according to him, his bank account was seized by the Internal Revenue Service for tax liabilities.

The parties’ child suffered from a number of medical problems, one of which caused seizures and could require prompt medical attention. Since the child’s diagnosis in 2004, the plaintiff had observed seventeen to twenty seizures. She had developed, for school officials, baby-sitters, day care and other care providers, a package of information regarding symptoms, when emergency help must be sought, the names of the child’s medical providers and emergency contact numbers. The defendant had never witnessed one of his son’s seizures. The parties had disputes about their child’s medications, with the defendant claiming that the plaintiff gave the defendant insufficient medicine, the plaintiff claiming that the defendant was not available for the exchange of medication, one parent throwing the medication at the other and other similar claims. Their child witnessed some of the altercations between the parties regarding his medication. The parties also required court orders to determine when each could be present during a medical procedure that required the child to stay in the hospital for twenty-four hours.

The parties also had disputes over the child’s sports activities, his religious training, parenting time during the summer vacation prior to trial, a party scheduled during the defendant’s parenting time and the subject of the child’s “show and tell” at school. It is clear that the parties have different parenting styles, with the plaintiff being more protective and cautious than the defendant.

Attorney Mark H. Henderson was appointed the child’s guardian ad litem by the court in 2005. Henderson met with both parties on several occasions, met with their child, made home visits and attended an appointment with the child’s physician. Henderson considered the plaintiff to be the primary caregiver and the maker of decisions regarding religion, medical care and education. Henderson noted that the plaintiff was very well informed regarding her son’s health, but the defendant “downplayed” the significance of his son’s health issues. Henderson also observed that parental collaboration was very limited and that the defendant was primarily responsible for the lack of timely resolution of parenting issues. Henderson recommended sole custody be awarded to the plaintiff. Henderson also recommended that her request to relocate to Richmond, Virginia, be granted because (1) the employment opportunity was genuine, (2) the defendant did not financially support the child during the pendente lite period, (3) the plaintiff was legitimately anxious about the cost of living in Fairfield County, (4) the plaintiff had sufficient flexibility to make a long distance visitation schedule work, (5) the plaintiff was committed to continuing the father-son relationship despite the relocation and (6) the child was young enough to make the move and still enjoy a close relationship with the defendant.

Phyllis Cummings-Texeira, a family relations counselor, completed a custody study recommending that if sole custody was awarded to one parent, the plaintiff should have sole custody. Cummings-Texeira concluded that the plaintiff was the primary caregiver, meeting the day-to-day and extraordinary needs of the child. Cummings-Texeira stated that relocation to Richmond, Virginia, was in the child’s best interest because (1) the plaintiff was his primary caretaker, (2) the plaintiff had valid reasons to relocate, (3) the relocation was not an attempt to remove the child from the defendant to harm their relationship, (4) the plaintiff had concerns about providing a good, stable life for her son and concerns about the cost of living in Fairfield County, (5) the plaintiff wanted to move to advance her career and to have job stability, (6) the plaintiff had concerns about being able to pay her child’s medical expenses and (7) although the defendant was not ordered to, he did not pay child support or pay any of the child’s medical expenses of approximately $18,000.

The court found that it was in the child’s best interest to have the plaintiff serve as the sole custodial parent. The court stated that the defendant loved his son, but “as evidenced by his communication and inability to co-parent with the plaintiff, he is angry and self-absorbed and has also deprived [his son] of financial resources.” The court also found that the defendant “[was] not always attuned to the child’s emotional needs.” The court found that the plaintiff “has always had a loving and affectionate relationship with the child and, since [he] was bom, has fully met all of his day to day needs. Moreover, compared with the defendant, she is more nurturing and supportive in her parenting style, more aware of the child’s medical, emotional and psychological needs and more responsive to his overall needs. Finally, the plaintiff will not hinder the relationship between father and son, whereas the defendant’s refusal to compromise on parenting issues will end in a stalemate with [his son] being left in limbo until a court makes a decision.”

The court also found that “the defendant’s conduct during the entire course of litigation shows him to be untrustworthy and unreliable in his financial dealings with the plaintiff. The defendant was not candid in his financial disclosures to the court or the plaintiff, he was not candid in his financial disclosures to his first wife, and the court has no evidence that his behavior will not continue unabated until the child reaches adulthood. . . . [The defendant] has been vindictive toward [the plaintiff] in making parenting decisions, exchanging medicine and the like, without regard of the effect his behavior would ultimately have on his son.”

The court also found that “the defendant has both the means and opportunity to maintain frequent contact with [his son]. . . . The defendant has changed jobs nearly every year during the course of the marriage and currently works from his home. Nothing about the nature of his business limits its geographical reach. He has sufficient financial resources to go to Virginia frequently to see his child and sufficient control over his work schedule to do so. The court’s orders regarding his parenting time will thus offer him significant access to his son and will not marginalize his role as a father.”

The court also found testimony persuasive that “the plaintiff will do a good job of helping [her son] integrate into his new environment. The plaintiffs nurturing and supportive style will help the child through the transition. Although close to his father’s relatives [in Connecticut, the child] will be close to his extended maternal family in Virginia .... [The child] has been cared for by his maternal grandparents, on whom the plaintiff will sometimes rely for child care in Virginia.”

The court found that it was in the best interest of the child to relocate to Richmond, Virginia, with the plaintiff. “The child’s own interests in sustained growth, development, and well-being require that the custodial parent be able to offer him a secure and stable home life, unfettered by the financial instability and constant acrimony and disputes regarding parenting decisions she would likely endure by remaining [in Connecticut].”

The court ordered the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child to the plaintiff with liberal and reasonable visitation for the defendant and permitted the plaintiff to move to Richmond, Virginia.

I

The defendant first claims that the court abused its discretion by ordering that the plaintiff could relocate to Richmond, Virginia, with the minor child. Specifically, the defendant claims that the record did not support a finding that the move was in the child’s best interest. We disagree.

“Our standard of review of a trial court’s decision regarding custody, visitation and relocation orders is one of abuse of discretion. . . . [I]n a dissolution proceeding the trial court’s decision on the matter of custody is committed to the exercise of its sound discretion and its decision cannot be overridden unless an abuse of that discretion is clear. . . . The controlling principle in a determination respecting custody is that the court shall be guided by the best interests of the child. ... In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court is vested with a broad discretion. . . . [T]he authority to exercise the judicial discretion under the circumstances revealed by the finding is not conferred upon this court, but upon the trial court, and ... we are not privileged to usurp that authority or to substitute ourselves for the trial court. ... A mere difference of opinion or judgment cannot justify our intervention. Nothing short of a conviction that the action of the trial court is one which discloses a clear abuse of discretion can warrant our interference. . . .

“The trial court has the opportunity to view the parties first hand and is therefore in the best position to assess the circumstances surrounding a dissolution action, in which such personal factors as the demeanor and attitude of the parties are so significant. . . . [E]very reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of [the trial court’s] action. . . . We are limited in our review to determining whether the trial court abused its broad discretion to award custody based upon the best interests of the child as reasonably supported by the evidence. “ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173, 187-88, 789 A.2d 1104, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 910, 796 A.2d 556 (2002).

Prior to Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413, 717 A.2d 676 (1998), “the courts utilized the best interest of the child standard, as set forth in [General Statutes] § 46b-56 (b), in deciding relocation issues. Section 46b-56 (b) provides in relevant part: In making or modifying any order with respect to custody or visitation, the court shall (1) be guided by the best interests of the child . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ford v. Ford, supra, 68 Conn. App. 177. In Ford, we recognized that the interests present in a postjudgment proceeding to modify custody are not the same as those present during a trial for the dissolution of a marriage. Id., 179-81. We therefore concluded that the “scheme in Ireland, and the additional [factors under Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 665 N.E.2d 145, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1996)] [did] not pertain to relocation issues that arise at the initial judgment for the dissolution of marriage. Rather . . . Ireland is limited to postjudgment relocation cases. . . . [B]ecause the Ireland court did not expand its holding to affect all relocation matters, relocation issues that arise at the initial judgment for the dissolution of marriage continue to be governed by the standard of the best interest of the child as set forth in § 46b-56. While the Ireland factors may be considered as ‘best interest factors’ and give guidance to the trial court, they are not mandatory or exclusive in the judgment context.” Ford v. Ford, supra, 184.

Section 46b-56 (c) directs the court, when making any order regarding the custody, care, education, visitation and support of children, to “consider the best interests of the child, and in doing so [the court] may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of [sixteen enumerated] factors .... The court is not required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it considers.”

The defendant claims that the court improperly permitted the plaintiff to relocate to Virginia with the parties’ minor son. The defendant argues that “there was a pronounced lack of evidence that the best interests of the child would be served or advanced by having to move to Virginia.” We disagree.

In support of his argument, the defendant refers, inter alia, to (1) the court’s finding that the child has close ties with both parents, (2) the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs direct supervisor that she would not lose salary if she did not relocate, (3) evidence that the plaintiff had a successful career while living in Connecticut, (4) the court’s statement that the defendant did not pay child support pendente lite or contribute to medical expenses, (5) the court’s finding that the defendant had never witnessed one of the child’s seizures, (6) the court’s finding that if the minor child continued to live in Connecticut, he would be a pawn in the defendant’s power struggle with the plaintiff for a considerable period of time, (7) the court’s finding that the defendant was untrustworthy and unreliable in his financial dealings with the plaintiff and the court’s statement that it had no evidence that the defendant’s behavior would change before the child reached adulthood, (8) the court’s finding that the defendant had the means and opportunity to conduct visitation in Virginia and (9) the court’s failure to do an in-depth analysis of each of the defendant’s reasons for opposing the relocation.

The defendant essentially requests that we reassess and reweigh the evidence in his favor. We decline to do so. “Once again, this court is compelled to state, what has become a tired refrain, we do not retry the facts or evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Bowman v. Williams, 5 Conn. App. 235, 238, 497 A.2d 1015 (1985), appeal dismissed, 201 Conn. 366, 516 A.2d 1351 (1986), and cases cited therein.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilcox v. Ferraina, 100 Conn. App. 541, 555, 920 A.2d 316 (2007). There is ample evidence in the record to support the court’s findings of fact, and we cannot say that the weight given to those facts amounted to an abuse of the court’s discretion.

II

Second, the defendant claims that the court improperly ordered him to pay a penalty for missed visitation. We decline to review this claim because the defendant has failed to present his claim adequately for our review.

The court entered the following order with regard to child support: “If [the defendant] exercises his visitation as ordered by the court . . . the court is not ordering the [defendant] to pay weekly child support. The court notes that under the Connecticut child support guidelines, his child support would be $161 per week, and he would contribute 31 [percent] toward the child’s medical expenses and work-related day care expenses. The court is not making a weekly child support award at this time due to the extraordinary expenses the [defendant] will incur in exercising his visitation rights long distance. If, however, the [defendant] fails to exercise his visitation ... he shall pay child support in the amount of $346 for each missed visit (in essence, two weeks of child support).”

“The duty to provide this court with a record adequate for review rests with the appellant. ... It is incumbent upon the appellant to take the necessary steps to sustain its burden of providing an adequate record for appellate review. Practice Book § 4061 [now § 60-5] .... It is not the function of this court to find facts. . . . Our role is ... to review claims based on a complete factual record developed by a trial court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cotto, 111 Conn. App. 818, 821, 960 A.2d 1113 (2008).

The defendant again relies on his argument that the court excused him from his support obligation of approximately $8000 each year only to cause him to pay $25,000 for visitation and $346 for each missed visit. The defendant has not provided any citations to the record that would support his factual claims. Without the necessary factual findings of the court, our analysis of the defendant’s claim would be mere speculation.

Additionally, the problems presented by the inadequate record are exacerbated by the fact that the defendant’s brief was so scant. The defendant has provided no legal authority for his claims, save for references to cases that he argues state that (1) child support payments may not be eliminated as punishment for interference with visitations, (2) alimony may not be contingent on sobriety, (3) support payments may not be conditioned on the right of visitation and (4) visitation may not be conditioned on the payment of child support. The defendant then simply declares that the court’s order imposes a penalty and is improper. “[W]e are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inadequate brief. . . . Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failing to brief the issue properly. . . . Where the parties cite no law and provide no analysis of their claims, we do not review such claims.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rozbicki v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 111 Conn. App. 239, 240 n.2, 958 A.2d 812 (2008), 290 Conn. 908, 962 A.2d 544 (2009). Accordingly, we decline to review this claim.

Ill

The defendant’s third claim is that the court improperly awarded sole legal and physical custody to the plaintiff. The defendant argues that the court awarded sole custody to the plaintiff because it believed neither party had requested joint custody. The defendant, however, has provided no factual basis for his claim. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the court’s award of sole legal and physical custody to the plaintiff was improper.

IV

Finally, the defendant claims that the court improperly ordered him to maintain life insurance after the child attains the age of majority. The defendant argues that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the maintenance of life insurance “to protect the future financial support of the minor child if either parent dies prior to their son reaching the age of majority or completing his postsecondary education.” (Emphasis in original.) The defendant argues that the court’s order is improper because it “simply suggested that the life insurance should be continued until the child complete [s] college, regardless of whether any educational support order [is] ever entered . . . .”

The defendant’s claim implicates General Statutes §§ 46b-56c, 46b-82 and 46b-84. “Construction of a statute calls for the plenary standard of review. ... In fashioning its financial orders [however] the court has broad discretion, and [j]udicial review of a trial court’s exercise of [this] broad discretion ... is limited to the questions of whether the . . . court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did. ... In making those determinations, we allow every reasonable presumption ... in favor of the correctness of [the trial court’s] action. . . . That standard of review reflects the sound policy that the trial court has the unique opportunity to view the parties and their testimony, and is therefore in the best position to assess all of the circumstances surrounding a dissolution action, including such factors as the demeanor and the attitude of the parties.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crews v. Crews, 107 Conn. App. 279, 300, 945 A.2d 502, cert. granted on other grounds, 288 Conn. 901, 952 A.2d 809 (2008).

The defendant’s claim is governed by our holding in Crews. In that case, we concluded that when the court retains jurisdiction over educational support orders, the court may provide for assurance of that support with life insurance. “Because the statutory scheme anticipates that a dissolution may occur in advance of the time postsecondaiy educational decisions appropriately can be made, it provides a mechanism for the court to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of ordering educational support for adult children.” Id., 302.

“[Decisions about postsecondary education usually occur at about the time a person becomes eighteen years of age. The defendant does not argue that the court abused its discretion by requiring him to maintain life insurance for the benefit of his children while they are minors. The court did not abuse its discretion, therefore, by issuing a financial order that would secure any educational support order that might be entered in the future, at about the time the children become eighteen and are making decisions about their educational futures. It is often said that common sense is not left at the courthouse door. ... As a matter of judicial economy, it would not be practical to require the defendant to maintain life insurance for the benefit of a minor child, terminate it when the child becomes eighteen and reinstitute it some months later when the adult child matriculates at a postsecondary educational institution as the beneficiary of an educational support order. See General Statutes § 46b-56c (g) (3).” (Citation omitted.) Crews v. Crews, supra, 107 Conn. App. 304.

In Crews, we noted that the court’s life insurance order was ambiguous because it might improperly have required the defendant “to provide insurance for the benefit of one of his children who reaches the age of majority and is not the beneficiary of an educational support order.” Id., 307-308. In the present case, however, we find that the court’s order of postmajority life insurance is clearly tied to a future educational support order. Although we agree that it would be better if the court explicitly had stated that the life insurance must be permitted to lapse if such an educational support order is not entered, we can find no other intent on the part of the court. Accordingly, we conclude that the court’s life insurance order was proper.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       Practice Book § 67-4 (c) requires an appellant to include in its brief: “A statement of the nature of the proceedings and of the facts of the case bearing on the issues raised. The statement of facts shall be in narrative form, shall be supported by appropriate references to the page or pages of the transcript or to the document upon which the party relies, and shall not be unnecessarily detailed or voluminous.” The defendant included a statement of facts of less than one page that did little more than provide an extremely cursory recitation of some procedural history. It is important to note that “[b]y complying substantially with Practice Book § 67-4, appellants better enable this court to consider their claims with efficiency and judiciousness.” Cichocki v. Quesnel, 74 Conn. App. 299, 301 n.2, 812 A.2d 100 (2002). “While a failure to comply fully with [Practice Book § 67-4 (c)] may preclude appellate review . . . such review, while more difficult, may nevertheless be appropriate.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cable v. Bic Corp., 79 Conn. App. 178, 179 n.l, 830 A.2d 279 (2003), aff'd, 270 Conn. 433, 854 A.2d 1057 (2004).
      The plaintiff provided no statement of the nature of the proceedings or of the facts in her brief.

       In 2004 and 2005, the plaintiff earned $57,969 and $81,023, respectively.

       In 2003, tiie parties did not have taxes withheld from the plaintiffs income for cash flow reasons. The plaintiff believed that the defendant had filed appropriate extensions and payment plan applications until her 2005 tax refund was seized by the Internal Revenue Service and she was billed $17,000.

       The child’s school did not allow prescription medications to be exchanged via a child.

       The plaintiff objected to the defendant’s decision to allow the child to swim without adult supervision, go out on a lobster boat, help load a wood stove and ride a razor scooter. The plaintiff was also concerned about the child’s access to power tools in the defendant’s house. The court stated that “[w]hile her complaints might be minor with most children, the fact that [the child] suffers from epilepsy is often minimized or ignored by [the defendant].”

       Henderson’s recommendation was based, in part, on the parties’ pretrial requests for sole custody, which would prevent the court from awarding joint custody.

       The defendant argues that “[t]he record, viewed as a whole, does not furnish the compelling evidence necessary to determine that the proposed move was for a legitimate purpose and in the best interests of the child.” (Emphasis added.) We have never required such a finding by the court to be supported by “compelling evidence,” and the defendant has provided no argument for adopting that standard. Instead, we review the court’s decision to determine whether it abused its discretion. See Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173, 187, 789 A.2d 1104, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 910, 796 A.2d 556 (2002).
      Additionally, the defendant claims that the record did not support a finding that the move had any legitimate purpose. As set forth below, this inquiry, part of the burden shifting scheme announced in Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413, 717 A.2d 676 (1998), has no place in a relocation issue that is part of an initial dissolution proceeding. See Ford v. Ford, supra, 68 Conn. App. 184.

       We note that the defendant devotes nearly thirty pages of his brief to this claim and includes multitudinous claims and arguments with little factual reference or legal analysis. Those which are not discussed were not sufficiently presented for our review, and we decline to address them. See, e.g., State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418, 470 n.33, 953 A.2d 45 (2008).
      In his statement of issues, the defendant’s first three issues are: “(1) Did the trial court err in allowing the plaintiff to relocate with the parties’ minor child from New Canaan, Connecticut to Richmond, Virginia? (2) Did the trial court err in requiring the defendant, a resident of Connecticut, to exercise all of his semi-monthly visitation rights with the minor child in the [Commonwealth] of Virginia as opposed to Connecticut? (3) Did the trial court err in granting the plaintiffs request for permission to relocate from Connecticut to Virginia against the defendant’s wishes and yet imposing upon the defendant the entire cost of the defendant’s visitations with the minor child in Virginia as well as round-trip travel expenses of the minor child to and from Connecticut?”
      The defendant folded all three inquiries into his first argument section, stating that the court erred in permitting the plaintiff to relocate and in ordering him to visit his child only in Virginia and to pay all costs of visitation. In this argument section, the defendant advances a complicated calculation of the costs of round trip airfare, hotel rooms, car rentals, meals, entertainment, etc., that he would incur as a result of the visitation orders. His calculations, however, contain no citations to the record and are couched in terms such as “[i]f one assumes that the average round-trip flight would be $250 . . . .” We are not at liberty to make such assumptions. As an appellate court, we are not permitted to find new facts. Blatt v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 63 Conn. App. 512, 515, 776 A.2d 1187 (2001). The defendant had the opportunity to present evidence of those costs at trial. He may not raise them for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Griswold Airport, Inc. v. Madison, 289 Conn. 723, 726 n.4, 961 A.2d 338 (2008). Furthermore, we can discern no legal analysis contained within the discussion of the supposed expenses. Accordingly, we decline to review his claim. See Knapp v. Knapp, 270 Conn. 815, 823 n.8, 856 A.2d 358 (2004).
      In addition, the defendant argues that the court gave no consideration to whether the plaintiffs goals could be achieved by relocation to a town such as Newark, Delaware. The defendant, however, provides no reference to any time when he raised such an argument before the court. Accordingly, we must presume that no such argument was raised at trial. The defendant may not raise such an argument for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Griswold Airport, Inc. v. Madison, supra, 289 Conn. 726 n.4.

       General Statutes § 46b-56d was enacted in Public Acts 2006, No. 06-168, after our decision in Ford. Section 46b-56d (a) provides: “In any proceeding before the Superior Court arising after the entry of a judgment awarding custody of a minor child and involving the relocation of either parent with the child, where such relocation would have a significant impact on an existing parenting plan, the relocating parent shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, (2) the proposed location is reasonable in light of such purpose, and (3) the relocation is in the best interests of the child.” (Emphasis added.) By its terms, § 46b-56d is limited to proceedings following a judgment awarding custody of a child and does not apply to the present case.

       Although General Statutes § 46b-56d (a) removed the burden shifting scheme set out in Ireland,, the Ireland factors were essentially codified by § 46b-56d (b).

       The enactment of General Statutes § 46b-56d clearly changed the analysis and the burden allocation in postjudgment relocation cases, but there is no indication that the legislature intended it to apply to relocation matters resolved at the time of the initial judgment for the dissolution of a marriage.

       The factors set forth in § 46b-56 (c) are: “(1) The temperament and developmental needs of the child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; (3) any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the child; (4) the wishes of the child’s parents as to custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child’s siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the best interests of the child; (6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent as is appropriate, including compliance with any court orders; (7) any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents’ dispute; (8) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child; (9) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school and community environ-mente; (10) the length of time that the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity in such environment, provided the court may consider favorably a parent who voluntarily leaves the child’s family home pendente lite in order to alleviate stress in the household; (11) the stability of the child’s existing or proposed residences, or both; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interests of the child; (13) the child’s cultural background; (14) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between aparent and another individual or the child; (15) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected, as defined respectively in section 46b-120; and (16) whether the party satisfactorily completed participation in aparenting education program established pursuant to section 46b-69b.”

       The deposition testimony of the plaintiffs supervisor made clear that the plaintiff received a base salary and commissions. Her employer also testified that the plaintiff received a raise to her salary on the basis of the high cost of living in Connecticut. The defendant argues that “[t]he court had no basis for determining that the cost of living would be less in Virginia other than the unsupported impressions held by [the] plaintiff. In fact, the testimony of the plaintiff’s supervisor . . . suggests the opposite, namely, that from a cost-of-living standpoint, the move to Virginia would adversely affect the plaintiff economically.” The defendant misconstrues the import of the testimony on which he relies; the supervisor’s testimony indicated that Lexmark believed that the cost of living in Connecticut to be so high as to warrant an increase in salary.
      Although it is clear that the plaintiff’s forfeiture of that increase, by moving to Virginia, would cause a decrease in her base salary, the defendant has not provided us with sufficient references to the evidence from which we could evaluate the court’s determination of how the plaintiff’s overall compensation related to the plaintiff’s overall cost of living. In addition, the court may reasonably have determined that the plaintiff’s increased access to her customers would result in increased compensation from commissions and offset any loss of base salary.

       The defendant argues that the court “apparently condemned” him for not making support payments that were never requested or ordered. The defendant’s references to the court’s decision, however, lead only to its finding that Cummings-Texeira “noted that [the defendant] did not pay child support pendente lite” and that Cummings-Texeira recommended relocation in part because “although [the defendant was] not in violation of any court order for child support . . . [he] did not voluntarily pay any child support, and the [plaintiff] was solely responsible for [the child’s] medical expenses which were approximately $18,000.” We fail to see how this recitation of testimony constitutes the apparent condemnation that the defendant perceives.

       The defendant argues in his brief: “The court’s bias against [the] defendant, or in favor of [the] plaintiff, is evident throughout the court’s memorandum and was similarly apparent in the maimer in which the proceedings were conducted. . . . The court clearly was not focused on the best interests of the child, but rather on criticizing the defendant.” It is clear from the defendant’s argument that his claim stems primarily from his conclusion that the court’s findings of fact and orders were adverse to him. The defendant did not file a motion for a recusal, disqualification or mistrial on the ground of bias.
      It is well settled that “[a]dverse rulings do not themselves constitute evidence of bias. State v. Fullwood, 194 Conn. 573, 582, 484 A.2d 435 (1984). Obviously, if a ruling against a party could be used as an indicia of bias, at least half of the time, every court would be guilty of being biased against one of two parties. Moreover, the fact that a trial court rules adversely to a litigant, even if some of these rulings were determined on appeal to have been erroneous, [still] does not demonstrate personal bias. Bieluch v. Bieluch, 199 Conn. 550, 553, 509 A.2d 8 (1986).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peatie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 112 Conn. App. 8, 26, 961 A.2d 1016 (2009). We again remind attorneys that “[a] charge of . . . bias against a trial judge in the execution of his or her duties is a most grave accusation. It strikes at the very heart of the judiciary as a neutral and fair arbiter of disputes for our citizenry. Such an attack travels far beyond merely advocating that a trial judge ruled incorrectly as a matter of law or as to a finding of fact, as is the procedure in appellate practice. A judge’s personal integrity and ability to serve are thrown into question, placing a stain on the court that cannot easily be erased. Attorneys should be free to challenge, in appropriate legal proceedings, a court’s perceived partiality without the court misconstruing such a challenge as an assault on the integrity of the court. Such challenges should, however, be made only when substantiated by the trial record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 26-27 n.10. After a review of the record, we can find nothing to substantiate the defendant’s claim or lead us to question the court’s impartiality in this case.

       We note that in her brief, the plaintiff referenced deposition testimony that was not in evidence. In his reply brief, the defendant contested the plaintiffs discussion of that testimony and included additional analysis of the testimony. Because it was never made part of the record, we have not included that testimony in our review of the evidence.

       Neither party has provided any authority that permits or prohibits the court’s prospective reduction, pro rata, of child support payments tied to actual attendance at visitation. We do not today endorse such orders but find the current record and argument insufficient to require the reversal of the court’s judgment.

        Additionally, we note that General Statutes § 46b-86 (a) may provide a more appropriate vehicle in such cases, by allowing a motion for modification of child support “upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party or upon a showing that the final order for child support substantially deviates from the child support guidelines established pursuant to section 46b-215a, unless there was a specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate.” A decision based upon such a motion has the benefit of a record of the parties’ actions and the reasons for those actions, a record which is necessarily lacking in a prospective order. See, e.g., Gaffey v. Gaffey, 91 Conn. App. 801, 882 A.2d 715, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 932, 890 A.2d 572 (2005).

       The defendant cites to a page of the court’s memorandum of decision as support for his claim, but we can observe only that it contains the following statement: “[The guardian ad litem] recommended that the court award sole custody to the plaintiff wife. He made this recommendation because prior to trial neither party had requested joint custody.” (Emphasis added.) We note that it is clear from the record that neither party requested joint custody until the defendant amended his cross complaint during trial. We cannot construe the court’s statement as anything other than a recitation of the facts on which the guardian ad litem based his recommendation.

       The defendant has provided no other argument in support of his claim that the court’s custody order was improper.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    VINCENT J. CATRINI v. ERIC ERICKSON ET AL.
    (AC 29770)
    Bishop, DiPentima and Gruendel, Js.
    Argued January 8
    officially released March 17, 2009

      Leonard M. Isaac, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Walter A. Shalvoy, Jr., for the appellees (defendants).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Vincent J. Catrini, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action against the defendants, Eric Erickson, Susan Erickson and RER Performance Enterprises, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain his action. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendants, alleging that they had made fraudulent representations to induce him to enter into a stock purchase agreement. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants’ actions violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The defendants moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties had a signed contract providing that they would submit any disputes arising from the agreement to final and binding arbitration. The court granted the motion to dismiss and this appeal followed.

Our Supreme Court has “long held that because [a] determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary. . . . Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it. . . . [A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bloomfield v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Connecticut Independent Police Union, Local 14, 285 Conn. 278, 286, 939 A.2d 561 (2008).

The fact that General Statutes § 52-409 allows a court to enter a stay in a matter involving an arbitration agreement belies the defendants’ claim, and the trial court’s implicit ruling, that an agreement to arbitrate ousts the court of its subject matter jurisdiction. If the existence of an arbitration agreement in a contract implicated the court’s jurisdiction to hear an action, then a court would, accordingly, not have jurisdiction to stay such a matter because, in the absence of jurisdiction, the court may only dismiss a matter. In short, because the power to order a stay implies that the court has jurisdiction over a matter, the legislature could not have empowered the court to enter a stay in such a matter unless the court has jurisdiction over it. Accordingly, the court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law.

       General Statutes § 52-409 provides: “If any action for legal or equitable relief or other proceeding is brought by any party to a written agreement to arbitrate, the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, upon being satisfied that any issue involved in the action or proceeding is referable to arbitration under the agreement, shall, on motion of any party to the arbitration agreement, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration has been had in compliance with the agreement, provided the person making application for the stay shall be ready and willing to proceed with the arbitration.”

       Similarly, courts have jurisdiction to enforce arbitration agreements and to enforce, modify or vacate arbitration awards, and are often called upon to interpret and construe the enforceability and scope of such agreements. See General Statutes §§ 52-410, 52-417, 52-418 and 52-419.

       The plaintiff also argues on appeal that his claims against the defendants do not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract. Because neither the granting nor the denial of a motion to stay under § 52-409 constitutes a final judgment; see Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc., 223 Conn. 761, 769, 613 A.2d 1320 (1992), and Travelers Ins. Co. v. General Electric Co., 230 Conn. 106, 107-108, 644 A.2d 346 (1994); we cannot, even in the spirit of judicial economy, reach the question of whether this action should properly be stayed.


author: GRUENDEL, J.

text:
    EDDIE PAPIC v. JOHN P. BURKE, BANKING COMMISSIONER, ET AL.
    (AC 28698)
    Bishop, Gruendel and Robinson, Js.

      Argued December 1, 2008
    officially released March 17, 2009

      Eddie Papic, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

      William J. Prensky, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).
   Opinion

GRUENDEL, J.

The pro se plaintiff, Eddie Papic, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the “findings of fact, conclusions of law and order” (order) of the defendant, the banking commissioner. In that order, the defendant found that, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security, the plaintiff (1) omitted to state material facts necessary to make statements not misleading in violation of General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (2), (2) made untrue statements of material fact also in violation of § 36b-4 (a) (2), (3) engaged in fraudulent practices or courses of business in violation of General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (3), and (4) failed to register as an investment adviser agent in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 36b-6 (c). The Superior Court affirmed that decision. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that (1) federal law preempts the defendant’s authority to penalize him for fraud and misrepresentation, (2) the defendant improperly found that the plaintiff violated §§ 36b-4 (a) and 36b-6 (c), and (3) the plaintiff was deprived of due process of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record reveals the following relevant facts. In September, 2000, the plaintiff and a colleague, Wilder Carnes, set out to create an investment fund. Their endeavors resulted in the creation of Criterion Investment Fund I L.P. (fund), a hedge fund based in Connecticut and organized as a limited partnership. Criterion Investment Capital LLC (LLC) was the fund’s general partner and was managed by the plaintiff and Carnes. In December, 2000, the fund began offering limited interests in the partnership to investors, and issued a confidential offering circular (circular) for the stated purpose of permitting prospective investors to evaluate the offering and the fund. The circular and its associated documentation were reviewed by counsel, who did not raise any concerns with regard to the disclosures contained therein.

The circular indicated that the minimum investment in the fund was $500,000 and that each investor must have a net worth of more than $1 million. Although the circular also indicated that the LLC could waive these minimum requirements in individual cases, not a single investment in the fund met the $500,000 requirement, and two investors did not meet the minimum net worth requirement. The circular also indicated that the fund would invest principally in equity securities, but by December, 2001, all of the fund’s trades were in options. The circular further provided that the LLC would furnish each investor with an annual report containing audited financial statements and quarterly reports on the status of the fund. The LLC never transmitted any such reports to its investors. Finally, the circular indicated that the plaintiff and Carnes were the managers of the LLC and were the “portfolio managers primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the [fund].” As such, the circular contained their biographies. The plaintiff wrote his biography, which did not contain any reference to a personal bankruptcy or a chapter 7 discharge in bankruptcy that he received on March 31, 1998.

Armed with the circular, the plaintiff solicited Edward Segan as a potential investor during the summer of 2001. He provided Segan with a copy of the circular, a performance document indicating a year to date return of 5.62 percent and a sample account statement. On the basis of these documents and the plaintiffs representations, Segan invested $152,724.01 in the fund on December 10,2001, becoming the last limited partner to join the fund. After Segan joined the fund, the plaintiff informed him that his funds would not be invested until 2002. Despite this representation, the plaintiff invested Segan’s funds on December 10, 2001, and by January 1, 2002, Segan’s investment had decreased in value to $10,947. After Segan provided the plaintiff with his initial investment, he never received any written reports from the plaintiff, the LLC or the fund. When Segan inquired of the plaintiff in January, 2002, regarding the value of his investment, the plaintiff informed him that it had decreased approximately 10 percent in value, despite an actual decrease of approximately 95 percent. In May, 2002, Segan filed a complaint with the defendant.

In response to Segan’s complaint, on February 5, 2004, the defendant issued a document to the plaintiff entitled “Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing.” In that document, the defendant charged the plaintiff with violations of § 36b-4 (a) (2) for omitting to state material facts and for making untrue statements of material facts, with violations of § 36b-4 (a) (3) for engaging in fraudulent practices or courses of business and with a violation of § 36b-6 (c) for engaging in -unregistered investment adviser agent activity.

The defendant held a hearing between November 18, 2004, and February 24, 2005, and on August 8, 2005, issued the order that serves as the basis for the present appeal. With regard to omitting material facts, the defendant charged the plaintiff with failure to inform Connecticut investors that (1) the plaintiff had filed for personal bankruptcy, (2) no investor had invested the minimum of $500,000, (3) the fund was trading principally in options, (4) two investors did not have a net worth exceeding $1 million and (5) the LLC did not transmit annual and quarterly reports to the fund’s investors. In the order, the defendant found that the plaintiff had violated § 36b-4 (a) (2) on each of these charges except the third, regarding trading principally in options. With regard to making untrue statements of material fact, the defendant charged the plaintiff with making four untrue statements of material facts in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security, also in violation of § 36b-4 (a) (2), by (1) providing Segan with the sample account statement, (2) providing Segan with the performance document indicating a return of 5.62 percent, (3) assuring Segan that his funds would not be invested until January, 2002, when his funds were actually invested on December 10, 2001, and (4) informing Segan that his funds had decreased 10 percent in value despite an actual decrease of more than 95 percent. In his order, the defendant found that only the latter two of these constituted violations of § 36b-4 (a) (2). With regard to engaging in fraudulent practices or courses of business, the defendant charged the plaintiff with violations of § 36b-4 (a) (3) for each of the same activities that formed the bases of the charges under § 36b-4 (a) (2) with the exception of failure to disclose the plaintiffs bankruptcy. In his order, the defendant found that each of the plaintiffs charged activities constituted violations of § 36b-4 (a) (3) except for (1) the charge involving the sample account statement and performance document, and (2) the charge of investing principally in options and indicating that the fund’s objective was to achieve superior long-term capital appreciation with moderate risk. Finally, the defendant’s order found that the plaintiff violated § 36b-6 (c) by transacting business as an unregistered investment adviser agent.

In summary, the defendant found four violations of § 36b-4 (a) (2) for omissions of material fact in the offer and sale of a security, two violations of § 36b-4 (a) (2) for making untrue statements of material fact in the offer and sale of a security, three violations of § 36b-4 (a) (3) for engaging in a fraudulent practice or course of business, and one violation of § 36b-6 (c) for transacting business as an investment adviser agent and failing to register as such. As a result, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to cease and desist from violating §§ 36b-4 (a) (2) and (3), and 36b-6 (c). He further ordered the plaintiff to pay a civil penalty of $40,000. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the decision of the defendant and dismissed the appeal. This appeal followed.

We begin by setting forth our standard of review for appeals from the defendant’s administrative decisions. “Judicial review of [an administrative agency’s] action is governed by the [Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes § 4-166 et seq.] . . . and the scope of that review is very restricted. . . . With regard to questions of fact, it is neither the function of the trial court nor of this court to retry the case or to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency. . . . Judicial review of the conclusions of law reached administratively is also limited. The court’s ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion. . . . Although the interpretation of statutes is ultimately a question of law ... it is the well established practice of this court to accord great deference to the construction given [a] statute by the agency charged with its enforcement. . . . Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court determines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts. . . .

“General Statutes § 4-183 (j), which describes the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions, provides in relevant part: The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. If the court finds such prejudice, it shall sustain the appeal . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cornelius v. Dept. of Banking, 94 Conn. App. 547, 551-52, 893 A.2d 472, cert. denied, 278 Conn. 913, 899 A.2d 37 (2006).

In his appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that (1) federal securities law preempts the portions of title 36b of the General Statutes that prohibit making material misrepresentations, making untrue statements and fraud, (2) the defendant improperly found violations of §§ 36b-4 (a) and 36b-6 (c), and (3) the defendant deprived the plaintiff of due process of law. We address each claim in turn.

I

PREEMPTION

“The question of preemption is one of federal law, arising under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hackett v. J.L.G. Properties, LLC, 285 Conn. 498, 504, 940 A.2d 769 (2008). The supremacy clause provides in relevant part: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2. Constitutional jurisprudence recognizes that the laws and regulations of a state may be preempted by federal laws or regulations in three circumstances: “First, Congress can define explicitly the extent to which its enactments pre-empt state law. . . . Pre-emption fundamentally is a question of congressional intent . . . and when Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the courts’ task is an easy one. Second, in the absence of explicit statutory language, state law is pre-empted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively. . . . Finally, state law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law.” (Citations omitted.) English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79, 110 S. Ct. 2270, 110 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1990); accord Hackett v. J.L.G. Properties, LLC, supra, 504.

In the present case, the plaintiff claims that the Securities Act of 1933 as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq. (Securities Act), and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulation D, 17 C.F.R. § 230.501 et seq. (regulation D), preempt General Statutes § 36b-4 (a), thereby precluding the defendant from enforcing that statute. The plaintiffs brief is somewhat unclear as to what language in either regulation D or the Securities Act preempts § 36b-4 (a). The brief is also unclear whether this preemption is accomplished by express preemption, field preemption or conflict preemption. Those ambiguities axe immaterial, however, because no language in the Securities Act or regulation D can be construed to preempt § 36b-4 (a) in the present context under any of the three theories of preemption.

Section 77r (a) of title 15 of the United States Code provides in relevant part: “Except as otherwise provided in this section, no law, rule, regulation, or order or other administrative action of any State ... (1) requiring, or with respect to, registration or qualification of securities, or registration or qualification of securities transactions, shall directly or indirectly apply to a . . . covered security ... (2) shall directly or indirectly prohibit, limit, or impose any conditions upon the use of . . . (A) with respect to a covered security . . . any offering document that is prepared by or on behalf of the issuer ... or (3) shall directly or indirectly prohibit, limit, or impose conditions, based on the merits of such offering or issuer, upon the offer or sale of any [covered] security . . . .” This language illustrates an intention to limit the extent to which our General Assembly or the defendant may, for example, dictate the contents of an offering document such as the circular in the present case. The legislative history of § 77r provides a clear indication of its purpose: “The purpose of this legislation is to modernize and rationalize certain important aspects of the regulatory scheme governing our capital markets, including the respective responsibilities of Federal and State governmental authorities over the securities markets. The legislation seeks to further advance the development of national securities markets and eliminate the costs and burdens of duplicative and unnecessary regulation by, as a general rule, designating the Federal government as the exclusive regulator of national offerings of securities.” H.R. Rep. No. 104-622, p. 16 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3877, 3878.

If the foregoing were the only language of the statute and the only statements of legislative intent, the plaintiffs preemption claim might be well founded. That is not the case. Section 77r (c) (1) sets forth the savings clause, permitting states to retain certain authority over securities transactions: “Consistent with this section the securities commission (or any agency or office performing like functions) of any State shall retain jurisdiction under the laws of such State to investigate and bring enforcement actions with respect to fraud or deceit, or unlawful conduct by a broker or dealer, in connection with securities or securities transactions.” This language is clear and would seem to obviate the plaintiffs preemption claim. As noted previously, federal preemption of state law “fundamentally is a question of congressional intent . . . .” English v. General Electric Co., supra, 496 U.S. 79. In this instance, Congress expressly indicated an intention not to preempt state fraud statutes in this context and not to preclude administrative agencies, such as the defendant’s, from enforcing fraud statutes.

On the contrary, the legislative history of § 77r (c) indicates that “[i]f ... a State had undertaken an enforcement action that alleged, for example, that the prospectus contained fraudulent financial data or failed to disclose that principals in the offering had previously been convicted of securities fraud, it is conceivable that State laws regarding fraud and deceit could serve as the basis of a judgment or remedial order that could include a restriction or prohibition on the use of the prospectus or other offering document or advertisement within that State.” H.R. Rep. No. 104-622, supra, p. 34, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3897. The present case is perfectly analogous to that envisioned by the drafters of the savings clause of § 77r. Here, the defendant invoked his authority under state securities laws to address the failure of the principal in the offering— namely, the plaintiff — to disclose key personal information and additional fraudulent and misleading information about the offering itself. Because it was the express intent of Congress not to preempt such actions, the plaintiffs argument fails. See generally, e.g., Zuri-Invest AG v. Natwest Finance Inc., 177 F. Sup. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (state common-law claims alleging securities fraud not preempted by federal law).

The foregoing applies primarily to express preemption and field preemption. The plaintiff also devotes a significant portion of his brief on appeal to arguing that the theory of conflict preemption causes the Securities Act and regulation D to preempt § 36b-4 (a). That simply is not so. Conflict preemption occurs “where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements ... or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Assn, of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. v. Abrams, 84 F.3d 602, 607 (2d Cir. 1996), quoting Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287, 115 S. Ct. 1483, 131 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1995); see also Hackett v. J.L.G. Properties, LLC, supra, 285 Conn. 504. Despite spending substantial time in his brief discussing conflict preemption, the plaintiff does not claim that it would have been impossible to comply with federal laws and regulations while simultaneously disclosing (1) his personal bankruptcy, (2) the extent to which the minimum investment and net worth requirements would be enforced and (3) the other fraudulent and misleading statements and omissions for which he was found to have violated § 36b-4 (a). With regard to the other option for conflict preemption, “where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”; (internal quotation marks omitted) Assn. of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. v. Abrams, supra, 607; the foregoing discussion illustrates that it was the express purpose and objective of Congress to preserve the defendant’s ability to enforce the provisions of § 36b-4 (a). Consequently, conflict preemption is not implicated.

II

FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION

We next address the plaintiffs claims that the defendant and the court improperly found that the plaintiff violated §§ 36b-4 (a) and 36b-6 (c). The plaintiff alleges that the decisions of both the defendant and the court were legally flawed and inconsistent with the administrative record. As discussed previously, our review of the decisions of the defendant and the court is very limited in scope. See Cornelius v. Dept. of Banking, supra, 94 Conn. App. 551-52. “[R]eview of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency’s findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Social Services, 288 Conn. 790, 833, 955 A.2d 15 (2008). In making this determination, we “must defer to the agency’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and to the agency’s right to believe or disbelieve the evidence presented by any witness ... in whole or in part.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gillis v. White Oak Corp., 73 Conn. App. 523, 540, 808 A.2d 712 (2002), cert. granted on other grounds, 262 Conn. 936, 815 A.2d 136 (2003) (appeal withdrawn March 28,2003). “This substantial evidence standard is highly deferential and permits less judicial scrutiny than a clearly erroneous or weight of the evidence standard of review.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State Board of Labor Relations, 111 Conn. App. 666, 672, 961 A.2d 451 (2008), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 901, 967 A.2d 112 (2009); see also Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 611, 931 A.2d 319, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929, 934 A.2d 244 (2007).

A

State of Mind

Before evaluating the evidence with regard to the individual charges, we first address the plaintiffs claim that scienter is an element of § 36b-4 (a), and that the defendant could not find a violation of that statute without also finding that the plaintiff knowingly or intentionally committed fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiffs claim is unfounded. In Lehn v. Dailey, 77 Conn. App. 621, 825 A.2d 140 (2003), this court, relying on our Supreme Court’s guidance, noted that “an individual charged with a violation of § 36b-4 has a defense to such an action if it meets its burden of persuading the fact finder that it did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the untruth or omission.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 631, citing Connecticut National Bank v. Giacomi, 242 Conn. 17, 46, 699 A.2d 101 (1997). This language illustrates that the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that he neither knew nor reasonably could have known of the untruths and omissions with which he was charged. The defendant implicitly found that the plaintiff did not meet this burden, and the plaintiffs brief does not assert that he made any attempt to demonstrate his lack of knowledge. Rather, he suggests that this court’s holding in Lehn was incorrect and that this panel should read into the statute an element requiring the defendant to affirmatively establish that the plaintiff knowingly or intentionally made a fraudulent omission or untruth. This court’s policy, however, precludes this panel from “reversfing] the ruling of a previous panel. The reversal may be accomplished only if the appeal is heard en banc.” Boccanfuso v. Conner, 89 Conn. App. 260, 285 n.20, 873 A.2d 208, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 905, 882 A.2d 668 (2005). As such, we decline to address the plaintiffs assertion that Lehn was decided incorrectly.

B

Bankruptcy

The plaintiff asserts that the failure to include any reference to his personal bankruptcy in the circular was not a violation of § 36b-4 (a). The record reflects that the plaintiff received a chapter 7 discharge in bankruptcy in 1998. The circular contained a biography of the plaintiff, written by the plaintiff, which omitted any mention of the personal bankruptcy. There also was evidence in the record, and the defendant found, that at least one Connecticut investor, namely, Segan, invested in the fund without knowledge of the plaintiffs bankruptcy filing. Segan testified that if he had known of the plaintiffs bankruptcy prior to becoming an investor in the fund, he would not have done so. This constitutes substantial evidence from which the defendant reasonably could conclude that the plaintiff omitted to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security. See General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (2) and (3).

C

Minimum Investment

The record further reflects that the circular prominently stated on the cover page in bold capital letters that the minimum investment in the fund was $500,000. That requirement was again indicated on pages one and eighteen. Although these latter references also stated that “the General Partner may waive the minimum subscription requirement for any investor,” the record demonstrates that not a single limited partner invested the requisite $500,000. It is also apparent that a Connecticut investor based his decision to invest in the fund, at least in part, on the minimum investment requirement. The foregoing constitutes substantial evidence from which the defendant reasonably could conclude that the plaintiff omitted to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security. See General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (2). That substantial evidence may also reasonably have led the defendant to conclude that the plaintiff engaged in an act, practice or course of business that operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit on a person in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security. See General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (3)._

D

Minimum Net Worth

We next address the charge that the plaintiffs failure to inform Connecticut investors that two investors in the fund did not meet the minimum net worth requirement constituted an omission of material fact and securities fraud. The record reflects that the summary of offering set forth at the beginning of the circular provided that “each investor must have a net worth in excess of $1,000,000 . . . .” The same requirement is set forth again eleven pages later. The first mention of the possibility that the net worth requirement may be waived is on page sixteen of the circular, which provides: “[T]he General Partner may waive minimum suitability standards not imposed by law.” There is also evidence in the record that the fund had two investors who did not meet these minimum net worth requirements. At least one Connecticut investor relied on the minimum net worth requirement in deciding to invest in the fund. Combined, this constitutes substantial evidence from which the defendant reasonably could conclude that the plaintiff omitted to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security, and constituted an act, practice or course of business that would operate as a fraud or deceit. See General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (2) and (3).

E

Reports to Investors

The circular also provided: “The General Partner, on behalf of the Partnership, transmits to each Limited Partner an annual report containing audited financial statements of the Partnership, including a statement of assets and liabilities, a statement of operations and a statement of changes in net assets. . . . The General Partner also furnishes to the Limited Partners a report on the status of the Partnership, including performance of the Partnership relative to industry benchmarks, at least quarterly.” The plaintiff testified that neither he nor the LLC issued any quarterly statements to the limited partners. This clear failure to provide statements to limited partners as promised in the circular constitutes substantial evidence from which the defendant reasonably could conclude that the plaintiff omitted to state a material fact necessary to make statements not misleading in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of a security, and constituted an act, practice or course of business that would operate as a fraud or deceit. See General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (2) and (3).

F

Timing of Investment and Amount of Loss

The record reflects that Segan invested $152,724.01 in the fund on December 10, 2001. Segan testified that despite requesting that his funds be invested immediately, the plaintiff informed him that his funds would not be invested until January 2, 2002. Segan also testified that at the end of January, 2002, the plaintiff informed him that his investment had decreased in value by approximately 10 percent. The record reflects, however, that by December 31, 2001, Segan’s investment had decreased to $10,947, a drop of more than 95 percent. The foregoing constitutes substantial evidence from which the defendant reasonably may have found that the plaintiff made untrue statements of material fact regarding both the timing of Segan’s investment and the amount of loss and that this misrepresentation further constituted fraud or deceit. See General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (2) and (3).

In light of the foregoing, the substantial evidence in the administrative and trial court records and the conclusions that reasonably may be drawn therefrom support the defendant’s findings that the plaintiff committed four violations of § 36b-4 (a) (2) for omission of material facts in the offer and sale of a security, two violations of § 36b-4 (a) (2) for making untrue statements of material facts in the offer and sale of a security and three violations of § 36b-4 (a) (3) for engaging in a fraudulent practice or course of business. As such, we conclude that the actions of the defendant with regard to finding violations of § 36b-4 (a) were not unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of its discretion; see Cornelius v. Dept. of Banking, supra, 94 Conn. App. 551-52; and, consequently, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court.

m

FAILURE TO REGISTER

Next, we briefly address the plaintiffs claim that the LLC was not required to register as an investment adviser and that he was therefore not required to register as an investment adviser agent. With regard to this claim, the plaintiffs brief is devoid of any legal analysis or citation to case law. Rather, it is filled with bald assertions and conclusory statements of law. This court and our Supreme Court “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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Knapp v. Knapp, 270 Conn. 815, 823 n.8, 856 A.2d 358 (2004). Consequently, we decline to review the plaintiffs claim.

IV

PROCEDURE

Finally, the plaintiff presents a laundry list of claims relating to the procedure followed by the defendant. We address each in turn.

A

The plaintiff first claims that he was denied his rights set forth in General Statutes § 4-182 (c). That statute provides in relevant part: “No revocation, suspension, annulment or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency gave notice by mail to the licensee of the facts or conduct which warrant the intended action, and the licensee was given an opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license. . . .” General Statutes § 4-182 (c). The order and judgment from which the plaintiff appeals do not revoke, suspend, annul or withdraw any license. The plaintiff simply states that the defendant “did intend to ‘suspend’ [his] license and foreclose his ability to register in the future,” without any citation to the record. Further, the plaintiff does not argue that he was denied his right to due process of law under the constitution of Connecticut or the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, nor does he specifically allege that he did not receive adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. As such, there is no indication in the record or in the plaintiffs brief that § 4-182 (c) was violated.

B

The plaintiff next claims that the defendant failed to provide him with an opportunity to present a brief and oral argument before rendering a final decision as required by General Statutes § 4-179 (a). Section 4-179 (a) provides in relevant part: “When, in an agency proceeding, a majority of the members of the agency who are to render the final decision have not heard the matter or read the record, the decision, if adverse to a party, shall not be rendered until a proposed final decision is served upon the parties, and an opportunity is afforded to each party adversely affected to file exceptions and present briefs and oral argument . . . .” General Statutes § 4-179 (a). The plaintiff argues that § 4-179 (a) applies to the present case because a hearing officer presided over the hearing and drafted the order, but the defendant issued the order. He asserts that the defendant did not read the record prior to rendering his final decision and that he, therefore, had a right under § 4-179 (a) to present argument before the defendant issued the final order.

This is not the case. There is no indication in the record to support the plaintiffs assertion that the defendant did not read the record prior to issuing a decision. On the contrary, the record indicates that hearing officer William Nahas, Jr., transmitted the transcripts and exhibits from the hearing to the defendant along with a copy of the proposed order. Further, in the memorandum accompanying that transmittal, Nahas reminded the defendant that he must either read the record or serve a copy of the proposed order on the plaintiff and provide him with an opportunity to be heard. The record before us indicates that the defendant chose the former. The order explicitly notes that the defendant “read the record” before rendering his decision. “In challenging an administrative agency action, the plaintiff has the burden of proof.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Finley v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 289 Conn. 12, 37, 959 A. 2d 569 (2008). Absent a showing by the plaintiff to suggest that the defendant did not read the administrative record prior to issuing the final order, we take the defendant at his word. See Solomon v. Connecticut Medical Examining Board, 85 Conn. App. 854, 858-59, 859 A.2d 932 (2004) (attestation that member of administrative panel read entire record prior to issuing decision sufficient to satisfy § 4-179 [a]), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906, 868 A.2d 748 (2005).

C

The plaintiff next claims that members of the department of banking engaged in ex parte communications in violation of General Statutes § 4-181 (c). That statute provides: “Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized by law, no party or intervenor in a contested case, no other agency, and no person who has a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the case, shall communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue in that case, with a hearing officer or any member of the agency, or with any employee or agent of the agency assigned to assist the hearing officer or members of the agency in such case, without notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the communication.” General Statutes § 4-181 (c).

This court has held that the purpose of § 4-181 (c) is “to preclude litigious facts [from] reaching the deciding minds without getting into the record. . . . The purposes of § 4-181 are to prevent one party from exerting improper influence on the decisionmaker . . . and to ensure that the reasons underlying his or her decision are on the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Menillo v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 47 Conn. App. 325, 329-30, 703 A.2d 1180 (1997).

In the present case, the plaintiff asserts that investigators for the department of banking and members of its securities division communicated with the office of the chief state’s attorney and with other individuals related to the plaintiffs case. The plaintiff claims that these constituted ex parte communications in violation of § 4-181. He is incorrect. The plaintiff did not allege that either Nahas or the defendant engaged in ex parte communications. Further, the individuals whom he claims had such communications were not “assigned to assist” Nahas or the defendant. As such, there was no violation of § 4-181.

D

The plaintiff next claims that the defendant violated section § 36a-l-50 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies by reversing the hearing officer’s procedural ruling, which would have given the plaintiff additional time to file a brief at the administrative hearing. The plaintiff readily admits, however, that the defendant later reversed the ruling and accepted the plaintiffs late brief. Because the defendant reversed his ruling, the plaintiff cannot show (nor does he attempt to show) that he was prejudiced by the ruling. Therefore, we need not address the question of whether the defendant violated § 36a-l-50. “[N]ot all procedural irregularities require a reviewing court to set aside an administrative decision; material prejudice to the complaining party must be shown.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jutkowitz v. Dept. of Health Services, 220 Conn. 86, 97, 596 A.2d 374 (1991).

E

The plaintiff also claims that the defendant violated the law by filing a separate action in the Superior Court to enforce the order against him. After the defendant issued his order, the plaintiff filed a motion with the court in the present case to stay enforcement of the defendant’s order pending appeal. The court denied that motion. Thereafter, the defendant filed a separate action in the Superior Court seeking enforcement of the order (enforcement action). The defendant sought a prejudgment remedy in the enforcement action, which the court granted. In the present case, the plaintiff claims that the defendant’s actions in filing the separate enforcement action were “in abrogation of the prejudgment remedy statute, General Statutes § 52-278j.” The plaintiff does not, however, provide any legal basis or analysis from which we could conclude that such an illegality occurred. We, therefore, decline to review this claim because it was briefed inadequately. “[W]e are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inadequate brief. . . . Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failing to brief the issue properly.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Housing Authority v. DeRoche, 112 Conn. App. 355, 360 n.6, 962 A.2d 904 (2009).

In addition, the plaintiff does not suggest the remedy that this panel or the trial court can provide for the alleged illegality of a separate action from which no appeal has been filed. The plaintiffs claim is nothing more than an attempt to collaterally attack the enforcement action. “A collateral attack on a judgment is a procedurally impermissible substitute for an appeal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gerte v. Logistec Connecticut, Inc., 283 Conn. 60, 63, 924 A.2d 855 (2007). The plaintiff had an opportunity to appeal directly from the issuance of the prejudgment remedy; see General Statutes §§ 52-2781 and 52-325c; and we will not permit him to attack a judgment of the trial court collaterally when he failed to do so directly. See Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 594, 601-602, 922 A.2d 1073 (2007).

F

Finally, the plaintiff claims that the introduction into evidence of a copy of the sample account statement provided to Segan deprived him of due process of law. As discussed previously, the defendant charged the plaintiff with making untrue statements of material fact and fraud in violation of § 36b-4 (a) (2) and (3) for presenting Segan with the sample account statement. In his final order, however, the defendant found no violation connected to the sample account statement.

We reiterate that “not all procedural irregularities require a reviewing court to set aside an administrative decision; material prejudice to the complaining party must be shown.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jutkowitz v. Dept, of Health Services, supra, 220 Conn. 97. There is no indication in the record or in the plaintiffs brief on appeal that his case was prejudiced by the introduction of the sample account statement, particularly because the defendant found that providing the sample account statement to Segan did not constitute a violation of § 36b-4 (a). Consequently, we do not reach the question regarding whether it was proper to admit the exhibit.

In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that the defendant’s order and the court’s review thereof do not meet any of the requisites set forth in § 4-183 (j) that would permit reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The plaintiff named the banking commissioner and the department of banking as defendants. We refer in this opinion to the banking commissioner as the defendant.

       Section 727 (b) of title 11 of the United States Code provides in relevant part: “[Subject to limited exceptions], a discharge . . . discharges the debtor from all debts that arose before the date of the order for relief under this chapter . . . .” Section 524 (a) of title 11 of the United States Code provides that a discharge in bankruptcy voids any judgment discharged under § 727 and enjoins creditors from collecting prebankruptcy debts.

       General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) provides in relevant part: “No person shall, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly ... (2) make any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or (3) engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.”

       General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 36b-6 (c) provided in relevant part: “No individual shall transact business as an investment adviser agent, within or from this state, unless he is registered as an investment adviser agent of the investment adviser for whom he acts in transacting such business. . . .” Note that the statutory language quoted in the defendant’s order is that of the 2005 revision, but the applicable substantive provisions were unchanged.

       The defendant issued a minor modification to the order on September 8, 2005.

       In finding three violations of General Statutes § 36b-4 (a) (3), the defendant consolidated certain factual charges regarding the contents of the circular that had constituted independent violations of § 36b-4 (a) (2).

       “Federal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect than federal statutes.” Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153, 102 S. Ct. 3014, 73 L. Ed. 2d 664 (1982).

       The defendant does not contest that the fund qualifies as a covered security.

       Throughout this analysis, we provide information regarding Connecticut investors’ reliance on the plaintiffs and the circular’s omissions and representations. This does not imply that the defendant was required to find reliance on the misrepresentations in order to find violations of General Statutes § 36b-4 (a). “A material fact is a fact that ‘a reasonable investor would have considered significant in making investment decisions.’ Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co., 228 F.3d 154, 161 (2d Cir. 2000). A fact need not be outcome determinative for it to be material. See id., 161-62; Folger Adam Co. v. PMI Industries, Inc., 938 F.2d 1529, 1533-34 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 983, 112 S. Ct. 587, 116 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1991). On the other hand, ‘[a]n omitted fact may be immaterial if the information is trivial ... or is so basic that any investor could be expected to know it . . . .’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co., supra, 162; see also Levitin v. PaineWebber, Inc., 159 F.3d 698, 702 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1144, 119 S. Ct. 1039, 143 L. Ed. 2d 47 (1999).” Lehn v. Dailey, supra, 77 Conn. App. 628-29. Although in Lehn,
        this court defined the requirements of General Statutes § 36b-5 (a), there is no reason why the interpretations of § 36b-5 should not guide our analysis of § 36b-4. Cf. Lehn v. Dailey, supra, 630 (“[t]he parties have offered no reason, and we can think of none, why the interpretations of § 36b-4 should not guide our analysis of § 36b-5”).

       See footnote 4. “ ‘Investment adviser agent’ includes (i) any individual, including an officer, partner or director of an investment adviser, or an individual occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, employed, appointed or authorized by or associated with an investment adviser to solicit business from any person for such investment adviser, within or from this state, and who receives compensation or other remuneration directly or indirectly, for such solicitation; or (ii) any partner, officer, or director of an investment adviser, or an individual occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, or other individual employed, appointed, or authorized by or associated with an investment adviser, who makes any recommendation or otherwise renders advice regarding securities to clients and who receives compensation or other remuneration, directly or indirectly, for such advisory services.” General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 36b-3 (a) (11) (A). “ ‘Investment adviser’ means any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as a part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities. . . General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 36b-3 (a) (10).

       The plaintiff also asserts that the trial court “ignored” a typewritten “road map” contained in the appendix to his appellate brief. He claims that the so-called road map outlines his arguments regarding the proper application of various federal and state statutes and rules to his claim. He further states that he was not required to register as an investment adviser agent because “[t]he LLC was not obligated to register [for] many reasons as summarized in the Appendix of this brief.” While it is entirely permissible to include regulatory and statutory provisions in an appendix to an appellate brief; see Practice Book § 67-4 (e); it is not permissible to use the appendix either to set forth argument or to evade the thirty-five page limitation provided in Practice Book § 67-3 and already met by the plaintiffs brief. See W. Horton & K. Bartschi, Connecticut Practice Series: Connecticut Rules of Appellate Procedure (2009 Ed.) § 67-8, p. 219 (authors’ comments); see also State v. Jones, 193 Conn. 70, 74-75 n.2, 475 A.2d 1087 (1984). As this court often has observed, “[although we are solicitous of the fact that the [plaintiff] is a pro se litigant, the statutes and rules of practice cannot be ignored completely.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peay, 111 Conn. App. 427, 430, 959 A.2d 655 (2008).

       The plaintiffs brief contains an entire section related to the procedural claims addressed herein. Although the introduction to that section does provide a very brief summary of the Bill of Rights and the fourteenth amendment, he does not invoke either in his substantive argument.

       We take judicial notice, as requested by the defendant, of the defendant’s enforcement action, Burke v. Papic, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-06-4020422-S, pursuant to our authority to take judicial notice of files of the Superior Corut. See In re Selena O., 104 Conn. App. 635, 648, 934 A.2d 860 (2007). That case remains pending in the Superior Court.

       The plaintiff also attempts to set forth a claim regarding an earlier decision of the defendant, which is procedurally unrelated to the present case. The documents associated with that decision were admitted into evidence at the administrative hearing because it involved an order to cease and desist, notice of intent to fine and notice of right to hearing issued against the LLC. In his present appeal, the plaintiff asserts that he was injured as a result of that earlier decision. Because that claim is not properly before us in the present case, we decline to afford it review.