Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

************************************************
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 postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially 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 Connecti-
cut 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 Jour-
nal 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.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

BETHEL BASEBALL ASSOCIATION, INC. v.
KURT R. DYER
(AC 46590)
Bright, C. J., and Clark and Westbrook, Js.*

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiff on
its counts alleging conversion and statutory theft. He claimed, inter alia,
that the court erred in concluding that he had committed conversion and
statutory theft. Held:

The trial court did not err in finding that the defendant committed conversion
and statutory theft, as ample evidence in the record, unchallenged by the
defendant, supported the court’s conclusion that the defendant engaged in
the unauthorized withdrawal of the plaintiff’s funds and that he intended
to deprive the plaintiff of its property.

This court declined to review the defendant’s unpreserved claim that the
trial court abused its discretion by failing to address various discovery
disputes arising from the plaintiff’s alleged noncompliance with the defen-
dant’s discovery requests.
Argued October 17, 2024—officially released April 1, 2025

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for, inter alia, conversion,
and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in
the judicial district of Danbury and tried to the court,
Shaban, J.; judgment in part for the plaintiff, from which
the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Kurt R. Dyer, self-represented, the appellant (defen-
dant).
Christopher G. Winans, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

BRIGHT, C. J. The self-represented defendant, Kurt
R. Dyer, appeals from the judgment, rendered after a
court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Bethel Baseball
* The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of
the date of oral argument.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

Association, Inc., on its counts alleging conversion and
statutory theft. On appeal, the defendant claims that the
court (1) erroneously concluded that he had committed
conversion and statutory theft and (2) abused its discre-
tion by not addressing the plaintiff’s failures to properly
respond to his discovery requests. We affirm the judg-
ment of the trial court.
The following facts, as found by the trial court, and
procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this
appeal. The plaintiff is an incorporated Little League
baseball organization for groups of children ages five
to twelve and thirteen to fifteen years old. The plaintiff
has an executive board consisting of a president, a
vice president for each age group, a secretary, and a
treasurer. The duties of the treasurer included filing
tax returns, reconciling the bills and income of the
organization, maintaining the books and records, and
handling any necessary payments that needed to be
made by signing checks or making payments through
cash, credit, or debit. The treasurer also was responsi-
ble for giving treasurer’s reports to the executive board,
which specified the total amount deposited in and with-
drawn from the accounts for each month and included
detail as to the individual deposits and withdrawals for
the month. To pay expenses, the plaintiff maintained
both a checking account and a savings account. A debit
card also was available to the treasurer to use pursuant
to his duties.
Jay Waterman served as the plaintiff’s treasurer for
nearly twenty years until 2017, when he became ill and
was unable to continue his duties. Justin Fern briefly
served as interim treasurer until October, 2017. In Octo-
ber, 2017, as the defendant’s term as president was
expiring, the executive board voted to elect the defen-
dant as treasurer. The defendant served as treasurer
from November 1, 2017, until October 31, 2018. After
his tenure, Linda Tran briefly served as treasurer until
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

Scott Beverly took over the position, starting in May,
2019. In early 2019, Beverly also became part of the
finance committee, which was created to help the trea-
surer plan for the flow of income and expenses and to
oversee the plaintiff’s finances.
Upon assuming his duties, Beverly reviewed several
bank statements from the period when the defendant
served as treasurer and noticed several irregularities.
Beverly observed that the statements showed a signifi-
cant loss of funds, however, they did not show any
significant individual expenditures that would have
accounted for the irregularities he observed. Beverly
compared the bank statements to the treasurer’s reports
and noticed significant variances between what had
been reported by the defendant and what the bank
statements actually showed. The defendant typically
had reported that the plaintiff was running a positive
balance. After examining the reports, Beverly noticed
that ‘‘[o]ften the amount reported by the defendant in
the monthly [treasurer’s] reports as to what was in the
[plaintiff’s] accounts was more than what was eventu-
ally shown on the bank statements.’’
‘‘After [the plaintiff] attempted to do an initial recon-
ciliation of the defendant’s treasurer’s reports and the
corresponding bank account statements, [the plaintiff
found] a negative variance of $35,000. . . . After a
more complete reconciliation covering the defendant’s
term as treasurer from November, 2017, through Octo-
ber, 2018, which showed cash withdrawals over each
month, the negative variance grew to approximately
$69,000. The balance in the savings account went from
$66,000 down to $10,000 during this time.’’ (Citations
omitted.)
The record of purchases made with the plaintiff’s
debit card showed further discrepancies. Many of the
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 5
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

items purchased appeared to be unrelated to the plain-
tiff’s ordinary expenses. Additionally, it appeared that
several purchases were made with the debit card and
returned for a cash refund. The records did not show
any amount of cash being returned to the account. Of
these debit card purchases, $2317.49 were for expenses
unrelated to the plaintiff’s ordinary expenses. The plain-
tiff’s bank informed Beverly that the only individuals
authorized to use the card between November, 2014,
and November, 2018, were Waterman, who was ill and
no longer able to perform his duties, and the defendant.
Beverly notified the executive board of the irregulari-
ties, and the executive board then hired an accounting
firm to review the plaintiff’s financial statements and
records. After the accounting firm’s review, it was deter-
mined that many of the items purchased with the plain-
tiff’s debit card were not related to the plaintiff’s activi-
ties or purposes. A specific summary of the items
purchased with the card and several receipts showed
that these purchases totaled approximately $25,000.
The accounting firm recommended that the plaintiff file
a complaint with the Bethel Police Department, which
it did.
‘‘As part of its investigation, the police interviewed
several individuals, including Craig Carlson, a former
president and treasurer of the [plaintiff]. Carlson was
unaware of the investigation until he was contacted by
the police. The interest of the police in Carlson stemmed
from an accusation by the defendant’s attorney1 that
Carlson had often requested and received money from
the defendant, ostensibly to pay the umpires, but that
Carlson had used it for his own purposes. At no time
during Carlson’s tenure as president or treasurer . . .
did the defendant ever accuse Carlson of misuse of [the
1
During the police investigation, the defendant was represented by an
attorney. The defendant was self-represented at trial and remains so on
appeal.
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

plaintiff’s] funds. It was not until the police began its
investigation that the defendant’s attorney leveled the
accusation against him. Carlson met with the police
three times and provided them with documents relevant
to the investigation. No action was ever taken by the
police against Carlson.’’ (Footnote added.)
During the defendant’s tenure as treasurer, Carlson
and the defendant coordinated the payment of umpires.
Umpires were typically paid in cash by a member of the
plaintiff at each game. The treasurer was responsible
for withdrawing the cash from the plaintiff’s savings
account at the bank. Carlson typically communicated
requests for cash to the defendant by email or phone.
‘‘Tom Martin, a former vice president of the [plaintiff],
had expressed concerns to the defendant during the
defendant’s term as president and treasurer that Carl-
son’s requests were sometimes out of line with what
the schedule of games showed and therefore suggested
that Carlson not be given any more money. However,
Martin also acknowledged that any discrepancy from
his perspective amounted to only approximately
$190.10. At one point, in a text message between Martin
and the defendant, they discussed whether or not they
should ask Carlson to resign from the executive board.
. . . Despite the concerns raised, neither Martin nor the
defendant ever asked the executive board to consider
seeking Carlson’s resignation or to investigate him. . . .
In his testimony . . . Martin acknowledged that, fol-
lowing the finance committee’s completion of its look
into the issue of the loss of funds, and the audit investi-
gation having been done, he did not believe that Carlson
had taken any funds for his own use.’’ (Citations omit-
ted; footnotes omitted.)
‘‘In August and September of 2018, there was a series
of text messages and emails between . . . Fern and
the defendant. . . . In those messages, the defendant
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 7
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

indicated to Fern that [the plaintiff] was running low
on cash. Fern responded that this was impossible as at
the time he turned over the treasurer’s duties, accounts,
and records to the defendant, [the plaintiff] had approxi-
mately $75,000 in its accounts. . . . In response, the
defendant provided Fern with his written explanation
of the withdrawals. . . . The defendant believed that
Carlson’s requests for funds for the umpires was an
issue. Fern had serious concerns about Carlson’s
requests for funds and thought that he should be
removed from the executive board and that, if he
remained, he would ‘bankrupt the league.’ Fern sug-
gested to the defendant that an audit of the finances
and requests be done, but the defendant did not want
to do so. . . . Despite Fern’s concerns about Carlson,
he never brought any of those concerns to the attention
of the executive board.’’ (Citations omitted.)
‘‘The audit turned over to the police department
found that at one point there was a deficit of approxi-
mately $60,000 in the accounts of the [plaintiff] and it
appeared to be due in part to cash withdrawals having
been made from the account.’’ The finance committee
emailed the defendant a list of the cash withdrawals made
during his tenure that remained unaccounted for and
requested further information about them. ‘‘The defen-
dant responded that the withdrawals were for the pay-
ment of the umpires. Although the defendant attempted
to be cooperative in answering the questions posed, he
did not provide any receipts or documentation for the
period during which he acted as treasurer.’’
The finance committee reviewed the records of umpire
payments requested compared to the withdrawals from
the plaintiff’s accounts and found that, of the fifty-six
cash withdrawals made, only five matched the amount
requested. Moreover, it was determined that the amount
of money identified as being withdrawn to pay the
umpires by the defendant was far more than historically
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

8 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

had occurred. Based on the number of games played
and the umpires required, ‘‘it would have been mathe-
matically impossible to pay out the amount of cash that
was reportedly withdrawn for that purpose. Although
the defendant claimed that he only withdrew the
amount requested by Carlson, there was no notation in
any treasurer reports of such requests.’’ Further, ‘‘Carl-
son’s requests for funds for the umpires in 2017 and 2018
were approximately $30,000 each year, which [were]
consistent with cash requests from prior years.’’
In the years after the defendant’s term as treasurer,
2019 through 2021, the income and expenses of the
plaintiff returned to the levels they had been prior to
his tenure.
‘‘Upon completion of its investigation, the police
arrested the defendant. He was charged with larceny
in the first degree and conspiracy to commit larceny
in the first degree. As to the charges, the defendant
filed an application for accelerated rehabilitation which
was granted by the court. As part of the condition of
participation in the program, the defendant was
required to, and did, make payment of $25,313 to the
[plaintiff].’’ (Citations omitted.) This amount addressed
the questionable purchases made by the defendant with
the plaintiff’s debit card but did not address the approxi-
mately $60,000 in questionable cash withdrawals made
by the defendant.
The plaintiff commenced the underlying action on
November 12, 2020. In its amended complaint, filed on
April 7, 2021, the plaintiff asserted claims of conversion
and statutory theft in violation of General Statutes § 52-
564,2 predicated on the allegation that the defendant
withdrew thousands of dollars from the plaintiff’s
2
General Statutes § 52-564 provides: ‘‘Any person who steals any property
of another, or knowingly receives and conceals stolen property, shall pay
the owner treble his damages.’’
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

accounts for his own personal uses.3 On May 21, 2021,
the defendant filed an answer in which he admitted
to serving as president and then treasurer during the
relevant periods but denied or left the plaintiff to its
proof as to the remaining factual allegations.
The matter was tried to the court, Shaban, J., on
February 23 and 24, 2023. At trial, the court heard testi-
mony from Beverly, Fern, Martin, and Carlson and
admitted several exhibits into evidence. The defendant
elected not to testify pursuant to his right under the
fifth amendment to the United States constitution.
On May 23, 2023, the court rendered judgment for
the plaintiff on the counts alleging statutory theft and
conversion; see footnote 3 of this opinion; concluding
that the plaintiff had proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant converted the plaintiff’s
funds to his own use and thereby committed statutory
theft. In its memorandum of decision, the court stated
that, ‘‘[b]ased on the cumulative testimony and the prop-
erly admitted exhibits, there is sufficient direct and
circumstantial evidence, coupled with the adverse infer-
ence from the defendant’s election not to testify on his
own behalf, to find that the plaintiff has met its burden
of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that
the defendant converted the [plaintiff’s] funds to his
own use. . . . Also, although there is more circumstan-
tial than direct evidence of conversion and theft, the
credible testimony of the witnesses and the admitted
exhibits are of sufficient weight to establish . . . that
the defendant engaged in the unauthorized withdrawal
of the plaintiff’s funds and, therefore, committed an
3
The plaintiff also alleged in a separate count that the defendant breached
his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff by misappropriating the funds. The court
rendered judgment for the defendant on that count, concluding that the
plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant owed it a fiduciary duty while
acting as treasurer, and the plaintiff did not file a cross appeal to challenge
the court’s judgment.
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

10 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

intentional deprivation of property.’’ (Citations omit-
ted.) The court found that the plaintiff had suffered
compensatory damages of $69,040 as a result of the
defendant’s conversion and theft. The court, pursuant
to § 52-564, then trebled those damages and rendered
judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $207,120.
This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural
history will be set forth as necessary.
I
On appeal, the defendant claims that the court errone-
ously concluded that the defendant had committed con-
version and statutory theft.4 According to the defendant,
‘‘[t]he trial court’s memorandum of decision is riddled
with significant factual errors, each one a glaring con-
tradiction to the evidence cited within those pages.
The cumulative effect of these inaccuracies cannot be
overstated. . . . Given that every one of these inaccu-
racies favor the plaintiff, [the defendant] asserts that
undoubtedly these errors unfairly influenced the court’s
conclusions, ultimately resulting in a clearly erroneous
determination.’’ (Emphasis omitted.) In essence, the
defendant claims that the court’s erroneous findings of
4
The defendant also requests that this court take judicial notice of the
plaintiff’s 2018 federal tax return, which he claims demonstrates that the
plaintiff ‘‘did not experience an unexplained increase in expenses but rather
a deficit due to a decrease in [its] revenue’’ and, therefore, conversion did
not occur. (Emphasis omitted.) We decline to take judicial notice of the
2018 federal tax return because ‘‘the trial court, rather than an appellate
court, finds facts.’’ State v. Edwards, 314 Conn. 465, 480, 102 A.3d 52 (2014).
The tax return was not offered as evidence at trial and therefore is not a
part of the record in the present case. Moreover, while this appeal was
pending, the defendant filed a motion to open the judgment in the trial court
asserting that the tax return was newly discovered evidence that disproved
the plaintiff’s allegations that money had been misappropriated. The trial
court denied the motion after a hearing, and the defendant has not challenged
that ruling either by amending this appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 61-
9 or by filing a new appeal. Accordingly, we will not consider the 2018
federal tax return. See id., 478 (‘‘we cannot consider evidence not available
to the trial court to find adjudicative facts for the first time on appeal’’).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 11
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

facts led it to incorrectly conclude that he engaged in
conversion and statutory theft. For its part, the plaintiff
contends that the trial court’s findings of fact were
supported by the evidence, and, to the extent the court
erred in any of its subsidiary findings, the court’s ulti-
mate conclusions were adequately supported by the
evidence presented. We agree with the plaintiff.
We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of
review and relevant legal principles. ‘‘It is well estab-
lished that [a]ppellate review of a trial court’s findings
of fact is governed by the clearly erroneous standard
of review. . . . A finding of fact is clearly erroneous
when there is no evidence in the record to support it
. . . or when although there is evidence to support it,
the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed. . . . [W]here . . . some of the facts found
[by the trial court] are clearly erroneous and others are
supported by the evidence, we must examine the clearly
erroneous findings to see whether they were harmless,
not only in isolation, but also taken as a whole. . . .
If, when taken as a whole, they undermine appellate
confidence in the court’s [fact-finding] process, a new
hearing is required. . . . In a civil case, [t]he harmless
error standard . . . is whether the improper ruling
would likely affect the result.’’ (Citations omitted; inter-
nal quotation marks omitted.) Rader v. Valeri, 223
Conn. App. 243, 260, 308 A.3d 66, cert. denied, 348 Conn.
959, 312 A.3d 37 (2024).
‘‘The tort of [c]onversion occurs when one, without
authorization, assumes and exercises ownership over
property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the
owner’s rights. . . . Thus, [c]onversion is some unau-
thorized act which deprives another of his property
permanently or for an indefinite time; some unautho-
rized assumption and exercise of the powers of the
owner to his harm. The essence of the wrong is that
Page 10 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

12 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

the property rights of the plaintiff have been dealt with
in a manner adverse to him, inconsistent with his right
of dominion and to his harm. . . . Conversion can be
distinguished from statutory theft as established by
[General Statutes] § 53a-119 in two ways. First, statu-
tory theft requires an intent to deprive another of his
property; second, conversion requires the owner to be
harmed by a defendant’s conduct. Therefore, statutory
theft requires a plaintiff to prove the additional element
of intent over and above what he or she must demon-
strate to prove conversion.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) AAA Advantage Carting & Demolition Ser-
vices, LLC v. Capone, 221 Conn. App. 256, 289, 301 A.3d
1111, cert. denied, 348 Conn. 924, 304 A.3d 442 (2023),
and cert. denied, 348 Conn. 924, 304 A.3d 442 (2023).
In its memorandum of decision, the court found that
these elements had been satisfied. Specifically, the
court found that ‘‘[t]he evidence is sufficient to establish
that the defendant, without authorization, assumed and
exercised ownership over funds belonging to the [plain-
tiff] to its exclusion. . . . There is little question that
the [plaintiff] was harmed as a result of the defendant’s
unauthorized acts. . . . The court finds that the defen-
dant intended to exercise dominion and control over
those funds. . . . [T]he credible testimony of the wit-
nesses and the admitted exhibits are of sufficient weight
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
the defendant engaged in the unauthorized withdrawal
of the plaintiff’s funds and, therefore, committed an
intentional deprivation of property.’’ (Citations omit-
ted.)
The court ‘‘[found] particularly credible the testimony
of Beverly regarding the audit, its results, the limited
access of others to [the plaintiff’s] accounts during the
defendant’s tenure as treasurer, the consistent history
of income and expenses of the [plaintiff] except for the
period of time [that the] defendant was treasurer, as
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 13
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

well as Beverly’s own work along with that of the
finance committee in investigating the precipitous drop
in income without any other identifiable variable
accounting for such a drop. That testimony was sup-
ported by the credible testimony of both Fern and Mar-
tin.’’ The court also considered the involvement of Carl-
son and concluded that, based on the testimony of Fern,
Martin, and Carlson himself, ‘‘[t]here was little to indi-
cate that Carlson’s involvement would have led to such
a large loss during the period of time in question. . . .
Consistent with this conclusion is the police depart-
ment’s taking no action against Carlson and its arrest
of the defendant.’’ The court also noted that, although
‘‘the granting of his accelerated rehabilitation applica-
tion relative to the larceny charges is not any sort of
admission of guilt . . . the $25,313 payment to the
[plaintiff] as a condition of the defendant’s participation
in that program can be considered as an informal
acknowledgment of the defendant’s responsibility from
a civil perspective.’’
In support of its findings, the court had before it the
following relevant testimony and documentary evi-
dence. Beverly testified as to the finance committee’s
investigation into the plaintiff’s loss of funds. He testi-
fied that the finance committee reviewed the plaintiff’s
savings and checking account statements, admitted into
evidence as exhibits 11 through 25 and 30, and observed
a significant decrease in funds over the course of the
defendant’s tenure as treasurer. He testified that the
finance committee compared the bank statements with
the treasurer’s reports, which were admitted into evi-
dence as exhibit 4. Beverly testified that the figures
reported by the defendant in the treasurer’s reports did
not align with the corresponding bank statements, and,
in fact, the treasurer’s reports often indicated that there
was more money in the plaintiff’s accounts than
reflected by the bank statements. Beverly testified that
Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

14 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

the finance committee’s review of the treasurer’s reports
and the plaintiff’s bank statements revealed an ‘‘unex-
plained hole of cash of over [$60,000].’’ The finance
committee created a summary of the increases and
decreases of the plaintiff’s checking and savings accounts
compared to the amount represented on the treasurer’s
reports. This summary, admitted into evidence as
exhibit 9, provided for a variance of $34,718 from the
treasurer’s reports and a total loss of $58,099 from the
plaintiff’s accounts between September, 2017, and Feb-
ruary, 2019. Beverly testified that the finance committee
concluded that the decrease in funds was primarily
attributed to numerous cash withdrawals from the
accounts. During his testimony, Beverly referenced
exhibit 7, which included emails from Carlson to the
defendant requesting funds for umpire payments and
a summary of the finance committee’s attempt to match
the requests for payments to the withdrawals. Beverly
further testified that, of the fifty-six withdrawals from
the plaintiff’s accounts, only five withdrawals matched
the amount requested by Carlson, with the other fifty-
one withdrawals exceeding the amount requested. Bev-
erly also testified that, on February 2, 2019, the finance
committee sent their summary of unaccounted for cash
withdrawals, admitted into evidence as exhibit 31, to
the defendant for additional information on the with-
drawals. The explanations the defendant provided,
admitted into evidence as exhibit 32, primarily attrib-
uted the withdrawals to umpire fees. Beverly testified
that the amount of money classified as umpire payments
was far higher than what the plaintiff historically had
spent. Exhibit 33 includes, inter alia, a summary of
Carlson’s requests to the defendant for umpire pay-
ments during the fall of 2017 and spring of 2018. In
the fall of 2017, Carlson requested $5435 for umpire
payments. In the spring of 2018, he requested $31,420.
Additionally, an estimate of umpire fees for the 2018
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

year, admitted into evidence as exhibit 34, projected a
total of $26,225 in umpire payments. Beverly testified
that both the records of umpire payments as well as
the estimate demonstrated that the amount withdrawn
was significantly higher than the amount the plaintiff
would expect to spend on umpires in any particular
season. On the basis of the finance committee’s work
investigating the loss of funds, Beverly testified that
the unaccounted for cash withdrawals totaled $69,000.
This testimony is supported by exhibit 10, a summary
of ‘‘Missing [Plaintiff] Cash,’’ which provides $69,040 as
the total amount of money the plaintiff lost.5
Beverly further testified that there were numerous
transactions made at stores with the plaintiff’s debit
card, either for goods unrelated to the association or
goods purchased and then returned for cash, with no
corresponding deposit in the plaintiff’s accounts. Dur-
ing his testimony, Beverly referenced exhibit 5, a sum-
mary of bank statements documenting the questionable
transactions; exhibits 36, 37, and 38, receipts obtained
by the Bethel Police Department; and exhibit 35, a sum-
mary of the transactions on the debit card, reflecting
a total $25,205.52 in purchases that were fraudulent
or returned for unaccounted for cash. Beverly further
testified that the defendant’s restitution payment to the
plaintiff as part of his accelerated rehabilitation applica-
tion in the criminal case represented the funds lost due
to the defendant’s misuse of the plaintiff’s debit card.
Beverly testified that there was limited access to the
plaintiff’s accounts during the relevant period. Exhibit
5
Exhibit 10 provides a calculation of the total missing cash. The summary
provides for $87,683 as total cash withdrawals between October, 2017, and
November, 2018. It also includes $1288 as accounting firm fees and $8000
as ‘‘C. Winan Fees,’’ presumably referring to the plaintiff’s counsel, both
incurred in ‘‘2019/2020.’’ The summary also includes $27,930 as ‘‘normal cash
spend.’’ The defendant does not raise any challenge as to the court’s findings
relating to the amount of funds withdrawn from the plaintiff’s accounts or
the damages awarded to the plaintiff by the court.
Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

6, a correspondence between the financial committee
and the plaintiff’s bank, established that, during the
relevant period, the only people with authorized access
to the plaintiff’s banks accounts were Waterman, who
was incapacitated,6 and the defendant. The correspon-
dence with the bank further showed that the defendant
was the only person issued a debit card during that
time. Although the defendant attempted to establish at
trial that Carlson was responsible for the loss of funds,
Beverly, Fern, and Carlson all testified that Carlson did
not have any access to the plaintiff’s accounts or funds
beyond receiving cash from the defendant to pay the
umpires during the relevant period.
Notwithstanding all of this evidence, the defendant
claims that the court made various subsidiary findings
of fact that were clearly erroneous, undermining its
ultimate conclusion that the defendant’s liability had
been established by a preponderance of the evidence.
We address each in turn.
First, the defendant argues that the court’s finding
that ‘‘often the amount reported by the defendant in
the monthly [treasurer’s] reports as to what was in the
[plaintiff’s] accounts was more than what was eventu-
ally shown on the bank statements’’ is clearly erroneous
as ‘‘[t]he plaintiff did not present any evidence to sup-
port this claim . . . [and] [the defendant] never
reported balances, and it was not in the [plaintiff’s]
practice to do so.’’ He argues that ‘‘these instances rep-
resent substantial errors in the court’s factual findings,
which inaccurately depict [the defendant] as intention-
ally disseminating misleading information to the plain-
tiff regarding the [plaintiff’s] financial state.’’ The prob-
lem with the defendant’s argument is that the court’s
6
The trial court found that, ‘‘by 2017, Waterman had become ill and no
longer was able to perform his duties, leaving the defendant as the sole
individual with access to the card.’’ The defendant does not challenge
this finding.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 15

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 17
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

finding did not refer to account balances. Instead, the
court referred to the monthly cash flow reported by
the defendant in the treasurer’s reports. The evidence
indicated that the reports submitted by the defendant
set forth the amounts deposited to and withdrawn from
the accounts for each month and that those figures did
not align with the corresponding bank statements for
the plaintiff’s accounts. Consequently, we cannot con-
clude that the court’s finding is clearly erroneous.
Second, the defendant argues that the court’s finding
that ‘‘the audit turned over to the police department
found that, at one point, there was a deficit of approxi-
mately $60,000 in the accounts of the [plaintiff] and it
appeared to be due in part to cash withdrawals having
been made from the account’’ was clearly erroneous.
He argues that it is significant that exhibit 46, on which
the court relied, ‘‘is not an ‘audit’ . . . and more import-
antly, it does not mention a ‘deficit of approximately
$60,000’ or any sum close to that amount . . . .’’ (Cita-
tion omitted; emphasis in original.) Although the defen-
dant is correct that exhibit 46 is a compilation rather
than an audit,7 and does not reference a shortfall of
$60,000, the court had ample other evidence that proved
the amount of the plaintiff’s loss. Specifically, Beverly,
whom the court found to be a credible witness, testified
7
‘‘Broadly speaking, auditors can provide three different types of account-
ing services: compilations, reviews, and audits. A compilation is the lowest
level of assurance regarding an entity’s financial statements. . . . It
expresses neither an opinion nor any level of assurance. . . . When per-
forming a compilation, an accountant need not verify or corroborate the
financial statement information provided by the client. . . . In an audit,
which provides the highest level of assurance on financial statements, the
accountant provides verification of the financial statements’ claims and
assertions and expresses an opinion on the entity’s financials.’’ (Citations
omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Otto v. Pennsylvania State Edu-
cation Assn.-NEA, 330 F.3d 125, 133 (3d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Shaler
Area Education Assn. v. Emory, 540 U.S. 982, 124 S. Ct. 466, 157 L. Ed. 2d
372 (2003), and cert. denied, 540 U.S. 982, 124 S. Ct. 467, 157 L. Ed. 2d
372 (2003).
Page 16 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

18 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

that the finance committee’s review of the treasurer’s
reports and the plaintiff’s bank statements revealed an
‘‘unexplained hole of cash of over [$60,000].’’ In addi-
tion, exhibit 10 reflects a total of $87,683 in cash with-
drawals from October, 2017, through November, 2018.
The summary refers to $27,930 as ‘‘normal cash spend’’
during that period. Exhibit 7, which summarizes check
requests and cash withdrawals from the plaintiff’s sav-
ings and checking accounts, states that a total of $57,888
was ‘‘[o]ver withdrawn’’ between September, 2017, and
October, 2018. Further, exhibit 9, which summarizes
the increases and decreases of the plaintiff’s checking
and savings accounts, represents a total loss of $58,099
from the plaintiff’s accounts between September, 2017,
and February, 2019. Thus, although exhibit 46 does not
support the specific finding challenged by the defen-
dant, the record contains an abundance of other evi-
dence establishing that approximately $60,000 remained
unaccounted for after the finance committee reviewed
the plaintiff’s accounts.8
Third, the defendant argues that the court’s finding
that, after the plaintiff asked for information about what
the cash withdrawals were for, ‘‘[t]he defendant
responded that they were for the payment of umpires’’ is
clearly erroneous. The defendant argues that the court
referenced exhibit 32 in relation to this finding, which
demonstrates that several of the payments were indi-
cated by the defendant to have been for expenses other
than umpires, and ‘‘[n]owhere is it evidenced that [the
defendant] indicated that all of these withdrawals were
for umpires, as this statement implies.’’ We see no such
implication in the court’s finding. The evidence at trial
8
Although the defendant challenges the accuracy of the court’s description
of the audit report, we again note that he does not raise any challenge as
to the court’s findings relating to the amount of funds withdrawn from the
plaintiff’s accounts or the damages awarded to the plaintiff by the court.
See footnote 5 of this opinion.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 17

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 19
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

was clear that the defendant’s principal focus when
explaining the discrepancies revolved around the pay-
ment of umpires. Exhibit 32 reflects that the defendant
claimed that the primary justification for cash expenses
was the payment of umpires. Similarly, the court heard
testimony that the payment of umpires was the defen-
dant’s regular explanation when he was questioned
about cash expenditures. For example, when describing
the defendant’s explanations for the withdrawals, Bev-
erly testified that ‘‘[m]ost of them, primarily, being
umpire spent.’’ Similarly, when asked at trial if he knew
what misappropriated funds were at issue, Carlson
replied, ‘‘It was brought to my attention that they’re
talking about umpire funds that were put on the spread-
sheet that [they] said were not used for umpires.’’ Con-
sequently, the defendant’s argument is without merit.
Fourth, the defendant argues that the court’s finding
that, ‘‘although the defendant attempted to be coopera-
tive in answering the questions posed, he did not pro-
vide any receipts or documentation for the period dur-
ing which he acted as treasurer’’ is clearly erroneous
because it is contradicted by exhibit C, which the court
cited to in support of that finding. We disagree with
the defendant’s interpretation of the court’s finding.
Specifically, the challenged finding refers to questions
posed by the plaintiff to the defendant regarding the
basis for certain cash withdrawals, which the defendant
claimed ‘‘were for the payment of the umpires.’’ Exhibit
C is comprised of several email exchanges from 2018
and 2019 between the defendant, Martin, Carlson, and
Fern, some of which are exchanges between the defen-
dant and Carlson, discussing umpire payments in 2018
during the defendant’s tenure as treasurer. Exhibit C
also includes emails in which the defendant forwarded
several of his email exchanges with Carlson to Martin
on March 2, 2019.9 Exhibit C does not, however, include
9
We note that, although during trial the defendant refers to exhibit C as
additionally containing text messages, the exhibit itself contains emails only.
Page 18 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

20 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

any receipts or other documentation to substantiate
that the amount withdrawn matched the amount
requested for umpire payments.
It is clear from a reading of the memorandum of
decision that the court did not view the email exchanges
in exhibit C as constituting ‘‘receipts or documenta-
tion.’’ In particular, the court found that, ‘‘[a]lthough
the defendant claimed that he withdrew only what he
was asked for by Carlson, there was no notation in
any treasurer reports of such requests.’’ Moreover, the
challenged finding is supported by Beverly’s testimony.
On cross-examination of Beverly, the defendant
attempted to establish his own cooperation in the
finance committee’s investigation by asking Beverly
whether he provided information as requested, to which
Beverly replied, ‘‘You didn’t provide any receipts or
documentation for the time period in question. That’s
why we’re here.’’
Fifth, the defendant argues that the court’s finding
that the defendant provided ‘‘written explanations of
the withdrawals’’ to Fern is clearly erroneous as there
is no evidence in the record to support it. The defendant
relatedly argues that exhibit 11, referenced by the court,
does not support this finding. The defendant overlooks
that the evidence in the record supports that the defen-
dant, in exhibit 32, provided written explanations of
the cash withdrawals to the finance committee at its
request. Consequently, even if the court erred in refer-
ring to Fern instead of the finance committee and mis-
takenly referred to exhibit 11 instead of exhibit 32, such
errors were harmless. See Rader v. Valeri, supra, 223
Conn. App. 261.
Sixth, the defendant argues that the court’s finding
that ‘‘Fern suggested to the defendant that an audit of
the finances and requests be done, but the defendant
did not want to do so’’ is clearly erroneous, as this fact
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 19

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 21
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

is not supported by exhibit C, referenced by the court
in relation to this finding, and, moreover, exhibit D
demonstrates that the defendant was advocating for
the audit, not opposing it. We are not persuaded.
Exhibit D10 is a series of emails between the defen-
dant, Martin, and Fern. In an email from Fern to both
the defendant and Martin on September 21, 2018, Fern
detailed his view of Carlson’s ability as a board member
and his management of funds. In the email, Fern stated,
‘‘And now [Carlson] knows [Martin is] double checking
him which is probably why he went bananas when [the
defendant] told him that he wanted an audit.’’ Were
this the only evidence before the court, the defendant’s
argument might have merit. The court heard conflicting
evidence, however, as to whom, between Fern and the
defendant, wanted an audit. At trial, Fern directly
refuted the statements contained in exhibit D in the
following exchange between himself and the defendant,
who, on direct examination, asked Fern to read portions
of the email exchange aloud.
‘‘[Fern]: . . . which is probably why he went
bananas when [the defendant] told him that he wanted
an audit.’’
‘‘[The Defendant]: I’m sorry. Who wanted the audit?
‘‘[Fern]: I wanted the audit, but I told you to tell him.
‘‘[The Defendant]: Can you please read the email?
‘‘[Fern]: This says when [the defendant] told him that
he wanted an audit, but—
10
Although exhibit D does not appear on the electronic exhibit list on the
Judicial Branch website, the court’s list of exhibits indicates that it was
admitted as a full exhibit. The trial court transcript similarly reflects that
the defendant offered exhibit D into evidence and that the court admitted
it as a full exhibit. We also note that, although the trial court, in its memoran-
dum of decision, refers to exhibits ‘‘D-1’’ and ‘‘D-2,’’ exhibit D consists of
one singular exhibit.
Page 20 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

22 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

‘‘[The Defendant]: So, this clearly states that [the
defendant] wanted an audit.
‘‘[Fern]: [The defendant] did not want an audit. [The
defendant] did not want an audit.
***
‘‘[The Defendant]: Is that not written in the email
that you—
‘‘[Fern]: It is, but I was the one—
‘‘[The Defendant]: Okay. Thank you.
‘‘[Fern]: —that wanted the audit.
***
‘‘[Fern]: Well, I thought the first option was for me
to look at the statements, which you didn’t want me to
do. . . . [T]he second option was to get an audit, which
you didn’t want to do.
***
‘‘[The Defendant]: Who didn’t want that?
‘‘[Fern]: You.
‘‘[The Defendant]: I didn’t want—okay. . . . [A]nd
how did we have communication?
‘‘[Fern]: Directly.
‘‘[The Defendant]: Face-to-face?
‘‘[Fern]: Yep.’’
On cross-examination by the plaintiff’s counsel, Fern
further stated that he, not the defendant, wanted the
audit.
‘‘[The Plaintiff’s Counsel]: I think you said you sug-
gested to [the defendant] that there be an audit.
‘‘[Fern]: Oh. Absolutely, yeah.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 21

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 23
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

‘‘[The Plaintiff’s Counsel]: And he wasn’t interested
in that.
‘‘[Fern]: Was not interested in that.’’
The court, as the trier of fact, was free to weigh
the evidence as it deemed appropriate. Palkimas v.
Fernandez, 159 Conn. App. 129, 133, 122 A.3d 704 (2015)
(‘‘it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to weigh
the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of
witnesses and determine whether to accept some, all
or none of a witness’ testimony’’ (emphasis omitted;
internal quotation marks omitted)). The court was not
required to accept the defendant’s interpretation of
exhibit D over Fern’s testimony, which the court found
to be credible. Because it was supported by Fern’s testi-
mony, the court’s finding that Fern suggested an audit,
which the defendant did not want, was not clearly erro-
neous.11
In sum, we conclude that the specific factual findings
challenged by the defendant either were not clear error
or that any error was harmless. We therefore reject the
defendant’s claim that ‘‘these errors unfairly influenced
the court’s conclusions, ultimately resulting in a clearly
erroneous determination.’’ (Emphasis omitted.) As dis-
cussed previously, there was ample evidence in the
11
The defendant also challenges several of the court’s findings based on
the treasurer’s reports and a corresponding summary, which were admitted
into evidence as exhibits 4 and 9, respectively. Exhibit 4 contains eight
treasurer’s reports submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff in 2018. The
defendant argues that exhibits 4 and 9 omitted two reports for June, 2018,
and October, 2018, in which the defendant reported a negative balance. In
support of that contention, the defendant relies on his proposed exhibit F,
which was not admitted into evidence at trial. Although the defendant
included exhibit F on his list of proposed exhibits before the trial court,
the transcript reveals that exhibit F neither was offered by the defendant
nor admitted into evidence by the court at trial. Accordingly, we decline to
review these claims. See In re Jah’za G., 141 Conn. App. 15, 27 n.8, 60 A.3d
392 (declining to review claim predicated on evidence not in record), cert.
denied, 308 Conn. 926, 64 A.3d 329 (2013).
Page 22 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

24 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

record, unchallenged by the defendant, supporting the
trial court’s ultimate conclusion that the defendant
engaged in the unauthorized withdrawal of the plain-
tiff’s funds and that he intended to deprive the plaintiff
of its property. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial
court did not err when it found that the defendant
committed conversion and statutory theft.
II
The defendant next claims that the trial court abused
its discretion by failing to address various discovery
disputes arising from the plaintiff’s alleged noncompli-
ance with the defendant’s discovery requests. The plain-
tiff argues that this claim is not reviewable because the
defendant did not properly raise it before the trial court.
We agree with the plaintiff.
The following additional procedural history is rele-
vant to this claim. On August 1, 2022, the defendant
filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to respond to
eleven requests for production that he had propounded
on July 26, 2022. On August 5, 2022, the plaintiff opposed
the motion as premature under Practice Book § 13-10.12
On August 30, 2022, the plaintiff filed objections to three
of the defendant’s requests for production. Specifically,
the plaintiff objected to the defendant’s requests for
production of (1) the minutes of the plaintiff’s meetings
between 2014 and 2019, (2) contact information for
umpires hired in 2017 and 2018, and records related to
umpire fees, and (3) all records relating to any transac-
tions by the defendant from the plaintiff’s accounts
between 2014 and 2019. On October 31, 2022, the defen-
dant filed a motion for an order of compliance seeking
to compel the plaintiff to produce responsive docu-
ments. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had
12
Practice Book § 13-10 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) The party to whom
the request is directed or such party’s attorney shall serve a written response,
which may be in electronic format, within sixty days after the date of
certification of service . . . .’’
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 23

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 25
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

not only failed to produce documents as to which an
objection had been made but had failed to produce any
responsive documents for requests as to which there
were no objections. The defendant asked the court to
compel ‘‘immediate compliance as the trial is less than
five weeks away.’’ In response, the plaintiff filed a notice
of compliance on November 4, 2022, stating that, pursu-
ant to Practice Book § 13-10, it had complied with the
defendant’s request for production dated July 26, 2022.
On November 4, 2022, the defendant filed a caseflow
request seeking a hearing on his motion for an order
of compliance. The plaintiff filed an objection to this
request on November 7, 2022. The trial court, Shaban,
J., denied the request on the ground that the plaintiff
had filed a notice of compliance with the defendant’s
requests. On November 9, 2022, the defendant filed an
objection to the plaintiff’s notice of compliance and
responses to the defendant’s requests for production
in which he asserted that the plaintiff’s responses were
inadequate in several respects as well as a caseflow
request seeking consideration of his objection to the
plaintiff’s notice of compliance. On November 18, 2022,
the defendant filed a memorandum in support of his
objection to the plaintiff’s notice of compliance. On
November 22, 2022, the court issued an order stating
that ‘‘[a]ny issue regarding compliance with discovery
will be addressed at the commencement of trial on
November 30, 2022.’’
Thereafter, both parties requested and were granted
continuances of the trial. In the defendant’s motion for
continuance, he explained, ‘‘I am respectfully requesting
a continuance as I have just received nearly 200 pages
of evidence from the plaintiff. Late Monday, [November
21, 2022], I received several emails from [the plaintiff’s
counsel] with large files attached to each email totaling
nearly 200 pages of evidence from the plaintiff. This
discovery was sent in response to my request from
[July]. I need to gain access to the law library, which has
been closed since early last week due to Thanksgiving.’’
Page 24 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

26 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

Thereafter, the court granted the defendant’s motion
and rescheduled the trial to begin on February 23, 2023.
Following his motion for a continuance, the defen-
dant did not file any further motions seeking an order
for compliance by the plaintiff with his requests for
production prior to trial. On February 15, 2023, the
court ordered each party to submit a trial management
report identifying proposed exhibits they intended to
offer into evidence and witnesses they intended to call.
In his trial management report, the defendant con-
tended that ‘‘[the plaintiff] has possession and control
of [the defendant’s] relinquished records and receipts,
evidence necessary to disprove [the plaintiff’s] allega-
tions, yet [the plaintiff] now denies the existence of
such records and therefore would not release them to
[the defendant] in discovery. [The plaintiff] is alleging
[that the defendant] misused its funds and has the very
records needed to prove otherwise as a result of the
[defendant] voluntarily turning them over to the organi-
zation upon his departure at the end of his term. Yet
[the plaintiff] now denies possession of said documents
despite the fact that the defendant can document that
these items were turned over to the plaintiff. . . . The
plaintiff now controls this very evidence needed to doc-
ument the purpose for the alleged ‘unexplained, unnec-
essary and unusual’ withdrawals. [The defendant] is
prepared to present evidence to the contrary and will
document that he did share this information with the
plaintiff upon his voluntary departure from the organi-
zation.’’
On February 23, 2023, prior to the commencement
of trial, the defendant did not raise any discovery issues
with the court; rather, when asked by the court, ‘‘[A]re
you ready to proceed today?’’ the defendant responded,
‘‘Yes, I am.’’ At trial, during his cross-examination of
the plaintiff’s rebuttal witness, Beverly, the defendant
contended that the plaintiff had removed its meeting
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 25

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 27
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

minutes from its website and had failed to produce them
to the defendant. The following exchange took place:
‘‘[The Defendant]: . . . why would it be necessary
to pull the minutes down for past years going back—
because folks that were there in 2015 and [2016] were
not subject to scrutiny by the media, so why would you
feel the need to pull them down?
‘‘[Beverly]: We changed a lot of procedures when you
left, first off. Right? There’s a lot of things that happened
that shouldn’t happen. So, all of those are available to
all of our board members, and whoever requests them,
we are happy to provide minutes. We provided minutes
to you in discovery as well.
‘‘[The Defendant]: Was I provided 2015 and 2016
minutes?
‘‘[Beverly]: For the associated part of this case—
‘‘[The Defendant]: Yes.
‘‘[Beverly]: —which is 2017 and 2018?
‘‘[The Defendant]: Was I—
‘‘[The Plaintiff’s Counsel]: They were objected to,
Your Honor, [on] relevance grounds.
‘‘The Court: That’s all right. Just go ahead and answer
the question as best you can, Mr. Beverly.
‘‘[Beverly]: No.
‘‘[The Defendant]: I was not. Was there a particular
reason for that?
‘‘[Beverly]: No.
***
‘‘[The Defendant]: Why would minutes be down now,
three years after the [arrest in 2020]?
Page 26 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

28 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

‘‘[The Plaintiff’s Counsel]: . . . objection, relevance,
Your Honor.
‘‘[The Defendant]: No, [it] speaks to the transparency
of the organization.
‘‘The Court: Hold on. Hold on. So, the issue . . . is
relevancy. I’m not sure what the relevancy is after—
well after the fact . . . but I’m still going to allow the
question. And again, what weight I give it is another
issue.’’
In his closing argument before the trial court, the
defendant, referencing financial documents he pos-
sessed when he was treasurer, stated, ‘‘I had turned
everything over that I had. And now we’re in a position
to where much of those items have disappeared. Yet
there was enough information to substantiate, to bring
a case against me, but when asked in discovery for
those items, I was told that they don’t exist. And these
are items such as receipts. These are all things that
were provided to the [plaintiff]. I have to question the
intent of the [plaintiff] when it looks like . . . transpar-
ency is not a primary focus anymore.’’
On appeal, the defendant argues that the minutes and
missing financial records that he referenced during trial
were the subject of his discovery requests to the plaintiff
and that the court’s failure to order the plaintiff to
comply with the discovery requests prejudiced his abil-
ity to present his defense. Because the defendant did
not properly preserve this claim in the trial court, we
do not reach it.
‘‘Our rules of practice provide that we are not bound
to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at
trial or arose subsequent to the trial. . . . A claim is
distinctly raised if it is so stated as to bring to the
attention of the court the precise matter on which its
decision is being asked. . . . A claim briefly suggested
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 27

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 29
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

is not distinctly raised. . . . Our rules of procedure
[also] do not allow a [party] to pursue one course of
action at trial and later, on appeal, argue that a path
he rejected should now be open to him. . . . To rule
otherwise would permit trial by ambuscade.’’ (Citations
omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks
omitted.) A & R Enterprises, LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.,
Ltd., 202 Conn. App. 224, 229, 244 A.3d 660, cert. denied,
336 Conn. 921, 246 A.3d 2 (2021).
In the present case, the record clearly establishes
that the defendant did not raise the issue of the plain-
tiff’s alleged discovery noncompliance to the trial court
following his motion for a continuance of trial on
November 22, 2022, in which he indicated to the court
that the plaintiff had responded to his July 26, 2022
request for production. Given that the defendant’s previ-
ous motion for compliance and objection to the plain-
tiff’s notice of compliance both concerned the defen-
dant’s July 26, 2022 request for production, the
plaintiff’s production on November 21, 2022, seemingly
resolved any remaining compliance issues without any
need for involvement by the court. Significantly, at the
commencement of trial, when asked by the court if he
was ready to proceed, the defendant responded affirma-
tively, without raising any discovery issues.
The few references the defendant made in his trial
management report and during trial to the plaintiff’s
failure to provide him with relevant documents cannot
be construed as having distinctly raised a claim that
the plaintiff had failed to comply with its discovery
obligations and that this alleged failure prejudiced the
defendant. In his trial management report, although the
defendant contended that the plaintiff ‘‘denie[d] the
existence’’ of ‘‘records and receipts’’ that he had turned
over to the plaintiff, presumably when he ended his
term as treasurer, the defendant did not specify the
records to which he was referring, identify a request
Page 28 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

30 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

for production to which the plaintiff had failed to
respond, or request any action by the trial court. Other
than his assertion that he ‘‘can document that these
[records] were turned over to the plaintiff,’’ nothing in
the defendant’s trial management report alerted the trial
court that he was requesting any relief before the trial
began. See A & R Enterprises, LLC v. Sentinel Ins.
Co., Ltd., supra, 202 Conn. App. 229.
Further, although the defendant contends that he
‘‘addressed the issue of the relevant records he had
requested but was inexplicably denied during the dis-
covery process in his examination of the witnesses,’’ the
defendant characterized the purpose of his questioning
during trial as ‘‘speak[ing] to the transparency of the
organization.’’ Similarly, in his closing argument, the
defendant again mentioned the alleged discovery non-
compliance and stated, ‘‘I have to question the intent
of the [plaintiff] when it looks like . . . transparency
is not a primary focus anymore.’’ The defendant, thus,
used the plaintiff’s lack of transparency as a reason for
the court not to credit the plaintiff’s evidence. Certainly,
the defendant’s few questions to witnesses regarding
the plaintiff’s failure to produce documents did not
distinctly raise a claim that the plaintiff had violated
its discovery obligations and should either be sanc-
tioned or ordered to produce additional documents so
that the defendant could properly present his case. Con-
sequently, because the defendant raises this distinct
claim for the first time on appeal, it was not properly
preserved for this court to consider.13 Accordingly, we
decline to address this claim.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.

13
The defendant argues, for the first time in his reply brief, that his claim
is reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823
(1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188
(2015). Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court’s failure to
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 29

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 31
Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer

address various discovery disputes infringed on his right to due process
and to a fair trial. Other than a bald assertion that ‘‘the right to discovery
is protected under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to
the United States constitution,’’ the defendant has provided no analysis as
to why this garden variety discovery dispute is of constitutional magnitude
or how the court deprived him of due process when he never alerted the
court to the fact that he had not received the discovery he sought. See
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pollard, 182 Conn. App. 483, 487, 189
A.3d 1232 (2018) (‘‘[a]lthough we recognize and adhere to the well-founded
policy to accord leeway to self-represented parties in the appeal process,
our deference is not unlimited; nor is a litigant on appeal relieved of the
obligation to sufficiently articulate a claim so that it is recognizable to a
reviewing court’’). His claim, therefore, is inadequately briefed and, accord-
ingly, we decline to review his claim. ‘‘We will not engage in Golding . . .
review on the basis of . . . an inadequate brief.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) State v. Abramovich, 229 Conn. App. 213, 219, 326 A.3d 593 (2024).