author: WEST, J.

text:
    YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF NEW LONDON AND GROTON, INC., ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ET AL.
    (AC 31415)
    Robinson, Bear and West, Js.

      Argued October 27, 2010
    officially released March 8, 2011

      Edward E. Moukawsher, for the appellant (applicant).

      P. Jo Anne Burgh, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
   Opinion

WEST, J.

Patrick Foltz, owner of Port City Taxi, appeals from the decision of the trial court denying his motion to open and set aside the judgment and his motion to dismiss the court’s ruling to reverse the decision of the department of transportation (department) granting his application to operate two additional taxicabs in Groton, Montville, New London and Waterford. On appeal, Foltz claims that the court improperly denied each motion because (1) he was a necessary party in the administrative appeal of the department’s decision, and, as result of not being named as a defendant, the court lacked personal jurisdiction to render a decision in that appeal, and (2) the lack of service pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 et seq. caused him prejudice to such a degree as to require dismissal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of Foltz’ appeal. On November 26, 2004, Foltz filed an application with the department seeking authorization to operate two additional taxicabs in the combined territory of Groton, Montville, New London and Waterford. The plaintiffs, Yellow Cab Company of New London & Groton, Inc., and the Union Lyceum Taxi Company, intervened and opposed that application. On March 13,2006, the department granted Foltz’ application. After exhausting their administrative remedies, the plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal, challenging the department’s decision and naming the department as the defendant in that appeal. See footnote 2 of this opinion.

On August 28,2007, the department moved to dismiss the administrative appeal. During the first hearing on that motion, the court, Cohn, J., became aware that Foltz had not been served with notice of the pending administrative appeal. Pursuant to § 4-183 (e), the court ordered that the hearing be rescheduled and that Foltz be served with a copy of the amended administrative appeal to allow him the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Complying with the court’s order, the plaintiffs served Foltz at each of his two business addresses on October 10, 2007.® Notwithstanding those notices, Foltz did not move to intervene, nor did he attempt to participate in the pending administrative appeal. On January 11, 2008, the court denied the department’s motion to dismiss, and the parties submitted briefs on the merits of the administrative appeal. On October 28,2008, the court remanded the administrative appeal to the department and ordered the department to clarify what evidence it relied on in issuing the original decision. In addition, the court once again ordered the department to notify Foltz that he had the opportunity to correct the record and to present further evidence.

On December 8,2008, the department sent a certified letter, return receipt requested, to Foltz, informing him that the case had been remanded to the department and that he had the right to participate and to present “further evidence of trip records . . . .” The letter instructed Foltz that, should he submit additional records, a hearing would be held on December 22, 2008. On December 29, 2008, the department informed the court that Foltz had not responded to the notice. On February 5, 2009, the court issued a memorandum of decision sustaining the plaintiffs’ administrative appeal. The department did not appeal from the court’s decision.

On April 14, 2009, Foltz moved to open and set aside the court’s judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Next, on April 27, 2009, Foltz filed a motion to dismiss the judgment, claiming that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he was a necessary party in the underlying action and that the department’s failure to notify him in compliance with § 4-183 (c) required dismissal. Additionally, each motion claimed that the delay in notification, and the failure to name Foltz as a party prejudiced him to the extent that it required the court to dismiss the administrative appeal pursuant to § 4-183 (d). Thereafter, the court conducted a hearing on June 10, 2009, to allow Foltz the opportunity to present evidence that he was prejudiced by the delay in service. During that hearing, Foltz admitted to having signed all the certified receipts notifying him of the administrative appeal on October 10, 2007, and to having signed for the notice mailed to him on December 8, 2008. Although Foltz was not able to recall viewing the documents, he testified that his usual practice, when receiving certified mail, was to open it and to see what it contained.

On August 7, 2009, the court, by way of a memorandum of decision, denied Foltz’ motion to open and his motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Foltz had ample opportunity to participate in the administrative appeal and that he had not sustained his burden of proving that he was prejudiced regarding the method of service. The court found that Foltz was an experienced businessman and, as result of having been served properly with notice, should have realized the significance that the administrative appeal potentially could have had on his business. The court also concluded that the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act; General Statutes § 4-166 et seq.; did not require Foltz to be made a party, if an opportunity existed for him to become a party pursuant to § 4-183. Accordingly, the court denied Foltz’ motion to open and set aside and his motion to dismiss as a result of its repeated efforts to notify him pursuant to § 4-183 (e). This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

In his first claim, Foltz contends that the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss and set aside the judgment because he was a necessary party to the initial administrative appeal, and, as a result, the court lacked personal jurisdiction to render a decision. Specifically, Foltz claims that our jurisprudence, in accordance with § 4-183, mandated that he become a named party in the administrative appeal for the court to maintain jurisdiction. We disagree.

We begin by setting forth the appropriate standard of review. In the present case, Foltz is challenging the validity of the court’s construction of § 4-183; therefore, our review is plenary. See Kindl v. Dept. of Social Services, 69 Conn. App. 563, 566, 795 A.2d 622 (2002). In undertaking this review, “we are mindful of the principle that legislation is to be construed in light of a strong presumption in favor of jurisdiction.” Id., 567.

We note initially that even if we were to assume, without deciding, that Foltz was an indispensable party, such a finding would not necessarily create a jurisdictional defect as Foltz argues. “Ordinarily, an objection predicated on a claim of nonjoinder of a necessary or indispensable party does not go to the jurisdiction of the court.” Gaudio v. Gaudio, 23 Conn. App. 287, 305, 580 A.2d 1212, cert, denied, 217 Conn. 803, 584 A.2d 471 (1990); see also Bauer v. Souto, 277 Conn. 829, 838-39, 896 A.2d 90 (2006); Robinson v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 830, 837 n.9, 786 A.2d 1107 (2002). “Except as provided in [Practice Book §§] 10-44 and 11-3 no action shall be defeated by the nor\j oinder ... of parties. . . . Practice Book § 9-19. Additionally, [a]s set forth in Section 10-39, the exclusive remedy for nonjoinder of parties is by motion to strike. Practice Book § 11-3.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bauer v. Souto, supra, 838-39; see also General Statutes § 52-108 (“[a]n action shall not be defeated by the non-joinder or misjoinder of parties”). In the present case, Foltz has made no such motion.

Moreover, as this court has previously observed, the nonjoinder of an indispensable party in circumstances such as these would create a jurisdictional defect, and therefore require dismissal only “if a statute mandates the naming and serving of the party.” (Emphasis added.) Demarest v. Fire Dept., 76 Conn. App. 24, 31, 817 A.2d 1285 (2003). Our review of § 4-183, however, reveals no express language mandating that Foltz be named as a party to the administrative appeal.

Section 4-183 (e) provides: “If service has not been made on a party, the court, on motion, shall make such orders of notice of the appeal as are reasonably calculated to notify each party not yet served.” (Emphasis added.) In the present case, as soon as the court realized that Foltz had not been notified, it ordered him to be properly served. Subsequently, Foltz was served on two separate occasions, by certified mail, return receipt requested, notifying him of the administrative appeal between the parties and giving him an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. See generally Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503, 514, 734 A.2d 551 (1999) (pursuant to § 4-183 [c] party served properly by appellant mailing copy of administrative appeal by registered or certified mail). Notwithstanding Foltz’ having been served outside the statutory time line, such a defect did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. It is well settled that untimely service on an interested party, other than the agency involved, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. See General Statutes § 4-183 (c); Tolly v. Dept. of Human Resources, 225 Conn. 13, 28, 621 A.2d 719 (1993); Kindl v. Dept. of Social Services, supra, 69 Conn. App. 572-73. Absent a complete failure to serve a party, defective service in an administrative appeal is dismissable only upon a finding of prejudice to the party. See Tolly v. Dept. of Human Resources, supra, 28-29; see also Kindl v. Dept. of Social Services, supra, 574-75 (defective service not equivalent to total failure of service).

In support of his argument that the court lacked jurisdiction and improperly proceeded to judgment, Foltz relies on Delio v. Earth Garden Florist, Inc., 28 Conn. App. 73, 77, 609 A.2d 1057 (1992). Foltz, however, misinterprets the jurisdictional principle articulated in Delio. In that case, we stated that “[u]ntil one is given notice of the actions or proceedings against him and is thereby given opportunity to appear and be heard, the court has no jurisdiction to proceed to judgment either for or against him even though it may have jurisdiction of the subject matter.” (Emphasis added.) Id. Put differently, “[sjervice of process on a party in accordance with the statutory requirements is a prerequisite to a court’s exercise of in personam jurisdiction over that party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bicio v. Brewer, 92 Conn. App. 158, 166, 884 A.2d 12 (2005). In the present case, it is clear that, even though he was not named as a defendant in the administrative appeal, Foltz was notified and given an opportunity to appear and to be heard. It is also evident that the court considered Foltz a party when it ordered him to be served pursuant to § 4-183 (e).

Foltz has not cited any specific statutory provision that would have required the plaintiffs, or the court, to name him as party. See Sullivan v. Thorndike, 104 Conn. App. 297, 301, 934 A.2d 827 (2007) (dismissal not required absent statutory requirement that party be named in underlying proceeding), cert, denied, 285 Conn. 907, 908, 942 A.2d 415, 416 (2008). We conclude, therefore, that the court retained jurisdiction to issue a decision in the underlying action when it ordered that Foltz be served with notice pursuant to § 4-183 (e).

Foltz next claims that the plaintiffs’ failure to serve him within the statutory time period and guidelines of § 4-183 (c) and (e) prejudiced him to such a degree that the court was required to dismiss the case pursuant to § 4-183 (c) and (d). In essence, he claims that the service of process, provided six months after the administrative appeal was initiated, was a fundamental failure of service and, as such, was so egregious as to require dismissal as a matter of law. We disagree.

In this claim, Foltz appears, once again, to be challenging the validity of the court’s construction of § 4-183 (c) and (d); therefore, our review of this claim remains plenary. See Kindl v. Dept. of Social Services, supra, 69 Conn. App. 566. To the extent that Foltz is claiming that the court was required by law to dismiss the administrative appeal on the ground of prejudice because there was a defect in service, we must decide whether that conclusion is legally and logically correct and finds support in the facts that appear in the record. See Crews v. Crews, 295 Conn. 153, 163-64, 989 A.2d 1060 (2010) (mixed questions of law and fact receive plenary review).

“Section 4-183 (d) provides a standard for dismissing appeals when parties other than agencies are not served, or are served with defective papers. This statutory standard is met upon a showing of actual prejudicial consequences stemming from a failure of service; a mere showing of untimely service is not grounds for dismissal. In other words, when a party other than the agency does not receive appeal documents within the prescribed time, an appellant’s right to appeal is not exposed to automatic dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.) Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, supra, 249 Conn. 521-22.

Foltz argues that the court was compelled to dismiss the appeal pursuant to § 4-183 (d) on the ground of prejudice because “[n]o effort was made to provide notice [that was] reasonably calculated to inform him that his interests were at issue.” Foltz also argues that because his name did not appear in the caption of the administrative appeal and the notices did not mandate his appearance at either of the hearings, this amounted to a total failure of service and, thus, caused him prejudice. Our review of the record, however, indicates that there was considerable effort made by the court to notify Foltz and that he chose repeatedly to ignore those notices. Neither our jurisprudence nor the facts contained in the record support Foltz’ attenuated interpretation of the service of process provided in this case.

The court found specifically, and the record supports, that Foltz failed to sustain his burden to show prejudice during the hearing on June 10, 2009, because (1) he acknowledged being served copies of the amended complaint, (2) no substantive rulings were issued by the court before he had been served, (3) he was notified that he had an opportunity to supplement the record during the court’s remand of the department’s decision, and (4) he failed to respond and chose not to take advantage of the court’s repeated efforts to involve him in the proceedings. Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing facts, we conclude that the record clearly supports the court’s conclusion that Foltz was not prejudiced by the untimely service.

Accordingly, we conclude that the court properly denied Foltz’ motions to open and set aside the judgment and to dismiss the administrative appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       Although Foltz was not named as a defendant in the underlying administrative appeal, he challenges the outcome of the trial court’s decision that effectively revoked his certificate to operate additional taxicabs. See footnote 9 of this opinion.

       Attorney Judith L. Almeida and attorney Laila A. Mandour, in their capacity as hearing officers for the department, also were named as defendants in the administrative appeal.

       On April 23, 2007, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Mary Alice Moore Leonhardt, submitted an affidavit of service stating that, in addition to the parties named as defendants, copies of the summons and administrative appeal also were sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Foltz. There were no certified return receipt cards attached to the affidavit. Subsequently, on April 23, 2007, Leonhardt submitted a second affidavit of service, this time only providing service to the department and its hearing officers.

       General Statutes § 4-183 (e) provides: “If service has not been made on a party, the court, on motion, shall make such orders of notice of the appeal as are reasonably calculated to notify each party not yet served.”

       The certified return receipts indicate that Foltz signed for each individual service at both addresses.

       Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the amended administrative appeal refer specifically to the department’s authorization for “Patrick E. Foltz d/b/a Port City Taxi” to operate two additional taxicabs as being the foundation for the administrative appeal.

       At the hearing, the court recognized that it was unaware of Foltz’ position stating, “[w]e don’t know . . . [what Foltz’] position is now because he hasn’t — we’ve told him about the lawsuit. . . and he hasn’t shown up here. ... If he has an interest in sustaining ... his license, let him come back into court . . . and justify it again.”

       In its correspondence to the court, the department attached the certified return receipt cards that showed that Foltz signed for the notice on December 10, 2008. Additionally, during the January 27, 2009 hearing, the department reiterated to the court that it tried to contact Foltz.

       Subsequent to the court’s conclusion, the department issued its amended final decision after appeal on April 2, 2009, which revoked Foltz’ certificate to operate the additional taxicabs.

       General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides in relevant part: “Within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under section 4-180 or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under said section ... a person appealing as provided in this section shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision at its office .... Within that time, the person appealing shall also serve a copy of the appeal on each party listed in the final decision at the address shown in the decision, provided failure to make such service within forty-five days on parties other than the agency that rendered the final decision shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Service of the appeal shall be made by United States mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, without the use of a state marshal or other officer . . . .”

       General Statutes § 4-183 (d) provides: “The person appealing, not later than fifteen days after filing the appeal, shall file or cause to be filed with the clerk of the court an affidavit, or the state marshal’s return, stating the date and manner in which a copy of the appeal was served on each party and on the agency that rendered the final decision, and, if service was not made on a party, the reason for failure to make service. If the failure to make service causes prejudice to any party to the appeal or to the agency, the court, after hearing, may dismiss the appeal.”

       In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded that “it may on its own motion, as here, order the plaintiff[s] to give notice to a nonserved, nonappearing defendant so that his rights might be protected in the administrative appeal.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: LAVINE, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ALAN W. GOLDER
    (AC 31757)
    Lavine, Beach and Alvord, Js.
    Argued December 13, 2010
    officially released March 8, 2011

      Alice Osedach, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

      Marjorie Allen Dauster, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David I. Cohen, state’s attorney, and Joseph C. Valdes, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

LAVINE, J.

The defendant, Alan W. Golder, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of two counts of burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102 (a), one count of larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122 (a) (2) and one count of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2) (B). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court, in its instructions to the jury, misled the jury with respect to the intent required to find him guilty of kidnapping, (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of kidnapping because the state failed to establish that he had the requisite intent to prevent the victim’s liberation, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of burglary and larceny because the state failed to establish that he was the individual who committed the offenses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In early 1997, the defendant entered into an agreement with Robert Liebman to bring Liebman stolen jewelry. Liebman would then sell the jewelry at wholesale value to a jeweler who was once engaged to Liebman’s sister. This agreement continued for four to six months.

Eventually, Liebman agreed to drive the defendant from Queens, New York, to Greenwich in exchange for 50 percent of the money acquired from selling the jewelry stolen during the trip. On September 25, 1997, Liebman and the defendant drove to Greenwich, and Liebman parked the car near a police station and some commercial businesses.

Liebman stayed near the car while the defendant traveled on foot to the home of Sally Lynch and her family, including her daughter, May Lynch Branson. The defendant forcibly entered the Lynch residence through the window of the home’s upstairs dressing room. As Branson was walking into her parents’ bathroom, from the doorway, she could see the defendant, who was dressed all in black from head to toe, with his arms in her mother’s bureau. Branson retreated to her bedroom, and the defendant left with a string of pearls, an engagement ring with a blue sapphire and two diamonds, a Rolex watch, cufflinks and another ring. The defendant then met Liebman at the car where it was originally parked.

On October 28, 1997, Liebman drove the defendant to Greenwich again and parked in the same location as on September 25, 1997. The defendant traveled on foot to the home of Patricia Solari, entering the residence through a first floor window that led into a room next to the master bedroom.

As Solari was walking into her bedroom, the defendant jumped on her, picked her up and asked, “where’s the jewelry?” Solari pointed to some fake jewelry, and the defendant responded, “that’s not what I want. Where’s the real stuff? Where’s the safe?” Solari replied that she did not have a safe, and the defendant asked again where she kept her jewelry. Solari mentioned a closet in the kitchen where she had some jewelry in a bag, and the defendant walked her to the kitchen while holding her in a “bear hug . . . .” The defendant released Solari and took the bag of jewelry from the closet. He then told Solari that he was going to have to put her in the basement. Solari told the defendant that she was claustrophobic and asked that he not put her in the basement. She also told the defendant that she had asthma. The defendant decided not to put Solari in the basement and took her to her bedroom and asked if she had any rope. Solari responded that she did not have any, so the defendant took some neckties belonging to Solaii’s husband and “hog-tied” her to the bed.

The defendant then asked Solari where she kept her car and where the keys for it were located. Solari told him the keys were in her pocketbook, and the defendant went into the kitchen. Solari attempted to release herself from the bed, and the defendant returned to ask Solari if the car had an alarm. When the defendant left for the second time, Solari freed herself and called 911. Solari was tied to the bed for a total of twenty to twenty-five minutes.

The defendant, visibly upset, returned to the location where Liebman had parked the car. The defendant told Liebman that he had an altercation at the house and that when he was in the house, someone saw him.

The defendant was arrested in connection with several offenses that occurred between November 16,1996, and October 28,1997, including the events that occurred at the Lynch and Solari residences. The defendant was charged in an amended information with one count of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of § 53a-92 (a) (2) (B), one count of larceny in the first degree in violation of § 53a-122 (a) (3), four counts of larceny in the first degree in violation of § 53a-122 (a) (2) and four counts of burglary in the second degree in violation of § 53a-102 (a). The defendant’s case was tried before a jury with the evidentiary portion of the trial beginning on August 12, 2008.

On August 18, 2008, after the state rested, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charge. Specifically, counsel for the defendant argued that “through [State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008), State v. Sanseverino, 287 Conn. 608, 949 A.2d 1156 (2008), and State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418, 953 A.2d 45 (2008)], our state is now taking a very, very narrow interpretation of the actual kidnapping statute, and I do not believe that this particular incident fits into our new definition of kidnapping, nor what the state has to — the burdens that the state has to overcome to have a jury reasonably consider it.” The court denied the defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal the following day.

At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial, the court instructed the jury on the charges against the defendant, including the charge of kidnapping in the first degree. The court stated in relevant part: “In order to find the defendant guilty, the confinement or movement must be more than part of another substantive crime — here, the burglary — such that the burglary could have been committed without such acts. It is whether the confinement, movement or detention was merely incidental to the accompanying burglary or whether it was independently significant. A defendant may be convicted of kidnapping if, at any time prior to, during or after the commission of that other crime, the victim is moved or confined in a way that had independent significance; that is, the victim was restrained to an extent exceeding that which was necessary to accomplish or complete the other crime — the burglary.” The defendant did not object to these instructions.

On August 20, 2008, the defendant was found guilty of one count of kidnapping, two counts of burglary in the second degree and one count of larceny in the first degree. On October 24, 2008, he was sentenced to a total effective term of fifteen years imprisonment and ten years of special parole. This appeal followed.

I

The defendant first claims that the court, in its instructions to the jury, misled the jury as to the required intent to find him guilty of kidnapping in the first degree. Specifically, the defendant argues that pursuant to State v. Salamon, supra, 287 Conn. 509, the court should have instructed the jury that to find him guilty of kidnapping in the first degree, it needed to first reach a conclusion that he specifically intended to prevent Solari’s liberation for a longer period of time or to a greater degree than that which was necessary to commit another crime and that he prevented Solari’s liberation with the specific intent to commit a felony. We disagree.

“Our standard of review with regard to claims of instructional error is well established, [individual jury instructions should not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge. . . . The pertinent test is whether the charge, read in its entirety, fairly presents the case to the jury in such a way that injustice is not done to either party under the established rules of law. . . . [T]he whole charge must be considered from the standpoint of its effect on the [jurors] in guiding them to the proper verdict . . . and not critically dissected in a microscopic search for possible error. . . . Where . . . the challenged jury [instruction involves] a constitutional right, the applicable standard of review is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the jury was misled in reaching its verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Weaving, 125 Conn. App. 41, 51-52, 6 A.3d 203 (2010), cert, denied, 299 Conn. 929, 12 A.3d 569 (2011).

“In Salamon, our Supreme Court reconsidered its interpretation of Connecticut’s kidnapping statutes. . . . Ultimately, the court concluded that [o]ur legislature . . . intended to exclude from the scope of the more serious crime of kidnapping and its accompanying severe penalties those confinements or movements of a victim that are merely incidental to and necessary for the commission of another crime against that victim. Stated otherwise, to commit a kidnapping in conjunction with another crime, a defendant must intend to prevent the victim’s liberation for a longer period of time or to a greater degree than that which is necessary to commit the other crime. . . . The court stated that [the] holding [in Salamon was] relatively narrow and [that it] directly affects only those cases in which the state cannot establish that the restraint involved had independent significance as the predicate conduct for a kidnapping. . . . Additionally, the court stated: [A] defendant may be convicted of both kidnapping and another substantive crime if, at any time prior to, during or after the commission of that other crime, the victim is moved or confined in a way that has independent criminal significance, that is, the victim was restrained to an extent exceeding that which was necessary to accomplish or complete the other crime. Whether the movement or confinement of the victim is merely incidental to and necessary for another crime will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Consequently, when the evidence reasonably supports a finding that the restraint was not merely incidental to the commission of some other, separate crime, the ultimate factual determination must be made by the jury. For purposes of making that determination, the jury should be instructed to consider the various relevant factors, including the nature and duration of the victim’s movement or confinement by the defendant, whether that movement or confinement occurred during the commission of the separate offense, whether the restraint was inherent in the nature of the separate offense, whether the restraint prevented the victim from summoning assistance, whether the restraint reduced the defendant’s risk of detection and whether the restraint created a significant danger or increased the victim’s risk of harm independent of that posed by the separate offense.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Strong, 122 Conn. App. 131, 140-41, 999 A.2d 765, cert, denied, 298 Conn. 907, 3 A.3d 73 (2010).

While we do not quarrel with the defendant’s interpretation of Salamon, his reliance on the holding and its progeny as support for his claim is misplaced. As noted, our Supreme Court limited Salamon to cases in which the state cannot establish that the restraint involved had independent criminal significance as the predicate conduct for a kidnapping. Here, the victim was restrained to an extent exceeding that which was necessary to accomplish or to complete the other crime, and restraining Solari was not necessary for the defendant to accomplish any crime. Therefore, the holding of Salamon does not control this case.

Section 53a-92 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person and ... (2) he restrains the person abducted with intent to . . . (B) accomplish or advance the commission of a felony . . . .” In its instructions to the jury on the kidnapping charge, the court referred to burglary as the underlying felony for the kidnapping charge. Section 53a-102 (a) provides: “A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when such person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling, while a person other than a participant in the crime is actually present in such dwelling, with intent to commit a crime therein.” The defendant, therefore, completed the burglary on October 28, 1997, when he entered the Solari residence with the intent to take Solari’s jewelry. After the burglary was completed and after the defendant removed Solari’s jewelry from the kitchen closet, then the defendant moved Solari from the kitchen to the bedroom and tied her to the bed with her husband’s neckties. While this restraint facilitated the defendant’s escape, it was not necessary to accomplish the burglary, which already had been completed. We conclude that the restraint that occurred after the defendant took the jewelry from the kitchen closet had its own independent criminal significance.

In his brief, the defendant does not challenge the use of burglary as the underlying offense in connection with the kidnapping charge. During oral argument, however, counsel for the defendant stated that, although the restraint occurred after the jewelry was removed from the kitchen closet, the restraint was necessary for the intruder to take Solari’s car, or in other words, to commit larceny. Even if the offense of larceny is used as the underlying felony for the kidnapping charge, however, Salamon still does not apply. There is nothing in the record that indicates that Solari was capable of preventing the defendant from taking her car, or intended to prevent the defendant from taking the car. There is also nothing in the record that suggests that, without restraining Solari, the defendant would not have been able to leave with Solari’s car. Given that there is no evidence that the defendant needed to restrain Solari so that he could take her car, we conclude that the restraint was not incidental to the taking of the car, nor was it necessary for the defendant to complete the larceny and, therefore, the restraint has its own independent criminal significance.

There is no factual basis in the record to warrant a jury instruction based on Salamon. Therefore, we conclude that, in light of the instructions the court provided to the jury on the kidnapping charge, there is no reasonable possibility that the jury was misled in reaching its verdict.

II

In his final two claims, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of kidnapping, burglary and larceny. “The standard of review employed in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well settled. [W]e apply a two part test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [finder of fact] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ... In evaluating evidence, the [finder] of fact is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant’s innocence. . . . The [finder of fact] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical. ... On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the [finder of fact’s] verdict of guilty.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McGee, 124 Conn. App. 261, 272, 4 A.3d 837, cert, denied, 299 Conn. 911, 10 A.3d 529 (2010).

A

The defendant claims that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of kidnapping because the state did not present sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that he intended to restrain Solari to a greater degree than that which is inherent in the underlying separate offenses. We disagree and conclude that, given the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could conclude that when the defendant moved Solari from the kitchen to the bedroom and tied her to the bed, he intended to restrain her for a period of time that was longer than what was necessary for him to commit any underlying offenses.

As noted, the defendant committed the burglary when he entered the Solari residence with the intent to take Solari’s jewelry. The state presented evidence that the defendant grabbed Solari, moved her from the kitchen to the bedroom and then tied her to the bed after the burglary had been completed. This was sufficient to allow the jury reasonably to conclude that the restraint was not necessary for the defendant to commit the burglary, nor was the restraint inherent in the offense itself. Additionally, if we were to conclude that the taking of Solari’s car was the underlying offense for the kidnapping charge, it is apparent that any restraint was not necessary for the defendant to complete the larceny. There is nothing in the record that suggests that the defendant needed to restrain Solari to take her car. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the conviction, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant restrained Solari not to take the car but to prevent her from notifying the police, and, therefore, to facilitate his escape.

Although the defendant was not charged with robbery in the amended information, the defendant claims that the restraint of Solari was part of the course of conduct needed to complete the crime of robbery. This argument, however, is unavailing. General Statutes § 53a-133 provides: “A person commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: (1) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or (2) compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the larceny.” The defendant initially restrained Solari so that she would provide him with the location of her jewelry. The state presented evidence that, after obtaining the jewelry from the kitchen closet, the defendant continued to restrain Solari. The jury could have reasonably concluded that this additional restraint was not necessary to complete the robbery because, as with the burglary, the offense had been completed at the point when the defendant moved Solari to the bedroom and tied her to the bed.

B

Finally, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of burglary and larceny in relation to the events at the Lynch residence and his conviction of burglary in relation to the events at the Solari residence. Specifically, the defendant argues that the state failed to prove that he was the individual who committed the offenses at these two locations. Again, we disagree.

The state presented evidence that the defendant was athletic, weighed approximately 175 to 180 pounds, was of medium build and between five feet, eleven inches, and six feet tall. It further provided testimony from Liebman that both times he drove the defendant to Greenwich, the defendant dressed in all black, like a “ninja.” Additionally, the state presented evidence that the defendant told Liebman that he liked to “work” between 5 and 7 p.m. during dinnertime so that people were downstairs eating while he entered the home.

With respect to the events at the Lynch residence, Branson testified that she saw a man dressed all in black in her home on the night of September 25, 1997, and that the intruder was five feet, ten inches tall and of average build. The jewelry stolen from the Lynch residence included a string of pearls and a blue sapphire engagement ring with two diamonds. Liebman testified that the defendant showed him, among other things, a long pearl necklace and an antique sapphire ring with diamond baguettes on each side after they returned to Queens from their first trip to Greenwich. Liebman also parked about one and one-half miles from the Lynch residence during the first trip to Greenwich, and the defendant was gone from his presence between one and two hours.

As to the events at the Solari residence, Solari testified that the intruder was very athletic and very strong and that he was dressed like a “ninja.” She also testified that the intruder took an enamel pearl and ruby pendant and pocket watch. After their second trip to Greenwich, Liebman testified, the defendant gave him a gold pocket watch and a ruby pendant necklace.

Finally, Liebman testified that while he was watching television with the defendant, a news program had a story about a burglar called the “dinnertime bandit” who was stealing from houses in Connecticut. The defendant stated, in response to this story, that the program was referring to him and that he was going to go on the “run.”

The defendant claims that this evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the jury needed to draw several impermissible inferences to find him guilty of larceny and burglary. We note that “it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct. ... It is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes guilt in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence. ... In evaluating evidence, the [jury] is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant’s innocence. . . . The [jury] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical. ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Nazarian, 125 Conn. App. 489, 495-96, 8 A.3d 562 (2010). While jurors may draw inferences from the evidence presented at trial, they may not speculate to reach a conclusion of guilt. State v. Williams, 16 Conn. App. 75, 79, 546 A.2d 943 (1988). We conclude that the evidence presented by the state was sufficient for the jury reasonably to conclude, without resorting to speculation, that the defendant was the individual who committed the offenses at the Solari and Lynch residences.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The defendant took from the Solari residence, among other things, an enamel pearl and ruby pendant, two women’s watches, a pocket watch, a diamond tennis bracelet and three college rings.

       Concerning the events at the Solari residence, the defendant was charged with larceny for taking Solari’s car, not her jewelry. With respect to the events at the Lynch residence, the defendant was charged with larceny for taking the jewelry.

       The defendant also filed a motion to dismiss the kidnapping charge on June 30, 2008, arguing that under State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008), “where the perpetrator merely restrains the homeowner within the residence for a time period not greater than that necessary to commit the other crime coupled with the clear lack of intent to abduct,” there was no probable cause that the defendant committed the kidnapping.

       Restraint was necessary for the defendant to commit the offenses in these cases. In Salamon, the defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the second degree, unlawful restraint in the first degree and risk of injury to a child for grabbing a fifteen year old female, who was alone in the main stairwell of a train station, and holding her down and punching her in the mouth. State v. Salamon, supra, 287 Conn. 512-15. In Sanseverino, the defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree and sexual assault in the first degree for grabbing his employee by the shoulders, touching her breasts and pinning her down while trying to insert his penis into her vagina. State v. Sanseverino, supra, 287 Conn. 611-13. Finally, in Dejesus, the defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and two counts of kidnapping in the first degree for forcing an employee to engage in multiple sexual activities with him on three different occasions while in different rooms at their place of employment. State v. DeJesus, supra, 288 Conn. 422-24.

       Additionally, the court provided, in relevant part, the following instruction: “A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person and he restrains the person abducted with intent to accomplish or advance the commission of a felony. So, for you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
      “First, the defendant abducted a person. Second, that the defendant unlawfully restrained the person he abducted. And third, that he did so with the intent to accomplish or advance the commission of a felony. So, first, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant abducted a person. As relevant here, the term abduct means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by using physical force. . . .
      “Second, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant unlawfully restrained the person he abducted. The term restrain means to restrict a person’s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such a manner as to interfere substantially with her liberty by moving her from one place to another or by confining her either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place she has been moved without consent. . . .
      “The third and last element for the kidnapping is [that] the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did so with the intent to accomplish or advance the commission of a felony. Here, that felony is the crime of burglary, as I will define that later. . . .
      “Now, intent relates to the condition of mind of the person who commits the act; his purpose in doing it. As defined by our statute, a person acts intentionally with respect to a result when his conscious objective is to cause such result. . . . The only way a jury can ordinarily determine what a person’s intention was at any given time is by determining what the person’s conduct was and what the circumstances were surrounding that conduct, and, from that, infer what his intention was.”

       In Salomon, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction of kidnapping and remanded the case for a new trial in which “the jury must be instructed that, if it finds that the defendant’s restraint of the victim was merely incidental to the defendant’s commission of another crime against the victim, that is, assault, then it must find the defendant not guilty of the crime of kidnapping.” State v. Salomon, supra, 287 Conn. 550.

       While the restraint was not necessary for the defendant to accomplish any crime, we acknowledge that it did facilitate the taking of Solari’s car and his escape from the Solari residence. Because it was not necessary to the accomplishment of any crime, however, the restraint has its own independent criminal significance.

       At trial, counsel for the defendant referred to the restraint in conjunction with the theft of the car in the motion for a judgment of acquittal. This argument, however, was made outside the presence of the jury.

       For the jury to find the defendant guilty of kidnapping in the first degree, the state had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he abducted and restrained Solari with the intent to accomplish or advance the commission of a felony. See General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2) (B).

       There is no specific underlying offense listed in the amended information with respect to the kidnapping charge. The court, however, did instruct the jury that the underlying offense was burglary.

       The defendant also suggests that Liebman is not a credible witness because, at the time of his testimony, he had violated his New York parole and was participating in a substance abuse program. He also suggests that Liebman’s statements to the police were inconsistent. This court has concluded that “[e]vidence is not insufficient . . . because it is conflicting or inconsistent. [The jury] is free to juxtapose conflicting versions of events and determine which is more credible.... It is the [jury’s] exclusive province to weigh the conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses. . . . The [jury] can . . . decide what — all, none, or some — of a witness’ testimony to accept or reject.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Weisenberg, 79 Conn. App. 657, 663-64, 830 A.2d 795, cert, denied, 266 Conn. 932, 837 A.2d 806 (2003).