Smith Bros. Financial, LLC v. Belsito

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Smith Bros. Financial, LLC v. Belsito SMITH BROTHERS FINANCIAL, LLC, ET AL. v. SAMUEL P. BELSITO (AC 48158) Cradle, C. J., and Alvord and Seeley, Js.* Syllabus The defendant appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the plain- tiffs’ application for prejudgment remedies pertaining to the alleged breach of a sales and marketing agreement involving the buying and selling of traded securities. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court lacked statu- tory authority or subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ application. Held: The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, as the court properly resolved the issues raised in this appeal, and this court adopted the trial court’s thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision as a proper statement of the facts and applicable law on the issues. Argued April 29—officially released September 1, 2026 Procedural History Application for prejudgment remedies and disclosure of assets pertaining to the defendant’s alleged breach of a certain sales and marketing agreement, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis- trict of Tolland, where the court, Sheridan, J., denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss; thereafter, the court, Guarnieri, J., granted the application, and the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed. Jonathan M. Shapiro, with whom were Isabella Tatar and, on the brief, Mario Cerame, for the appellant (defen- dant). Stuart M. Katz, with whom was David E. Dobin, for the appellees (plaintiffs). Opinion PER CURIAM. This action arises from the filing of an application by the plaintiffs, Smith Brothers Financial, LLC, Joseph B. Smith and Stephen R. Michaels, with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to arbitrate a * The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.  Smith Bros. Financial, LLC v. Belsito claim alleging that the defendant, Samuel P. Belsito, had breached a sales and marketing agreement pertaining to the buying and selling of traded securities and interfered with the plaintiffs’ business relations. Underlying this appeal, the plaintiffs filed with the trial court an applica- tion for prejudgment remedies and disclosure of assets pursuant General Statutes §§ 52-422 and 52-278a et seq., which the court granted. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) lacked statutory authority and/or subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the application for prejudgment remedies and (2) erred in finding that the plaintiffs’ application was necessary to protect their rights in the arbitration. Having examined the record and considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judg- ment of the trial court should be affirmed. In granting the plaintiffs’ application for prejudgment remedies and disclosure of assets, the court issued a thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision, which contains a proper statement of the relevant facts and the appli- cable law on the issues. We therefore adopt the decision as our own. See Smith Bros. Financial, LLC v. Belsito, judicial district of Tolland, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (October 28, 2024) (reprinted at 241 Conn. App. 441, ___A.3d ). “It would serve no useful purpose for [this court] to repeat the discussion therein contained.” Nor- folk & Dedham Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wysocki, 243 Conn. 239, 241, 702 A.2d 638 (1997). The judgment is affirmed.