Solomon v. Hall-Brooke Foundation, Inc
In Solomon v. Hall-Brooke Foundation, Inc., 30 Conn. App. 129, 619 A.2d 863 (1993), the court determined that the plaintiff's request for "such other relief as the court deems necessary and just" was too amorphous to constitute a claim for money damages. Id., at 134.
In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on Practice Book 285A, now 5-2, which provides in relevant part that "any party intending to raise any question of law which may be the subject of an appeal must either state the question distinctly to the judicial authority in a written trial brief . . . or state the question distinctly to the judicial authority on the record . . . . If the party fails to do this, the judicial authority will be under no obligation to decide the question." The court observed that "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 is not distinctly raised." Solomon v. Hall-Brooke Foundation, Inc., supra, 30 Conn. App. at 134.
The Court ultimately concluded that the trial court's failure to award money damages to the plaintiff was proper because she failed to include in her complaint a specific request for such damages. Id., at 134-35.