Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal

Post 4852

Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed

Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.

According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.

The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.

LAW

A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The moving party must show both impropriety and resulting manifest injury sufficient to deprive that party of a fair trial; juries are presumed to follow curative instructions absent evidence to the contrary.

Withdrawal of counsel on the day of trial is also reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a last-minute discharge that would delay trial requires exceptional circumstances. Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.

DISCUSSION

Improper opening remarks.

Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin, citizenship status, and an old fraud conviction. The trial court found the remarks improper, prejudicial, and inflammatory, but immediately instructed the jury that opening statements were not evidence, citizenship was irrelevant, and any admissible conviction could be considered only for credibility.

Withdrawal And Self-Representation.

On the day trial began, counsel sought to withdraw after a client-counsel dispute concerning wheelchair damages, evidentiary rulings, and trial strategy. With a jury already selected and no exceptional circumstance shown, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying withdrawal.

Jury Selection.

Because no objection had been made before the jury was sworn, the claim was waived and the record was inadequate for appellate review.

Surveillance Video And Generalized Misconduct.

The surveillance-video challenge and the additional assertion that defense counsel repeatedly erred were presented only cursorily, without adequate record citations, authority, or legal analysis. The appellate court therefore declined to review them.

ANALYSIS

The decision turns largely on preservation, prejudice, and appellate presentation rather than on the merits of the underlying negligence claim.

The claims failed for procedural reasons: no exceptional circumstance justified disrupting trial by allowing counsel to withdraw and the evidentiary and misconduct claims were inadequately developed.

The case illustrates that even a self-represented appellant must preserve objections at the proper time and brief each appellate issue with specific record support, authority, and analysis.

CONCLUSION

For a reviewing court to judiciously and efficiently consider claims of error raised on appeal the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs. The Connecticut Appellate Court in the present case, concluded that the plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of proving that he was so prejudiced by the improper remarks that he failed to receive a fair trial.

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the judgment for the defendant.

It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a new trial or denying counsel’s day-of-trial withdrawal and that the remaining claims were inadequately briefed and the Appellate Court declined to address most of the issues raised by the Plaintiff and the judgment is affirmed.

ZALMA OPINION

It has become axiomatic that a plaintiff who represents himself in a trial or on has a fool for a client. As a result of the failure of appellate counsel (whether in pro per or represented by a lawyer) is inadequate the chances of success on appeal are weak. In this case the failure to adequately brief the issues the appeal was lost and the trial judgment Affirmed.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.