Case Background

Spring Brook Terrace Association, Inc., a condominium association in Stamford, Connecticut, filed a lawsuit against Columbus Gardens of Stamford Inc. and several individual unit owners. The case centered around repeated flooding allegedly caused by drainage practices on the Columbus Gardens property, located at 15 Columbus Place. The Plaintiff claimed that negligent site modifications and poor maintenance led to ongoing property damage. Columbus Gardens was incorporated in 2024, though drainage issues reportedly predate this formal establishment.

Cause

The legal dispute stemmed from Columbus Gardens’ efforts to manage stormwater without proper planning. The Defendants installed a drainage pipe that redirected water toward the neighboring Spring Brook property. They also repaved a parking lot with a slope that directs runoff toward Spring Brook. A catch basin meant to collect runoff was not adequately maintained. Downspouts and sump pumps were added to Columbus Gardens to manage their own flooding, but they allegedly worsened flooding on Spring Brook’s land.

Injury

The Spring Brook Terrace Association alleged that the flooding has caused persistent damage. Each rainstorm led to new water intrusion. This eroded their stone wall, damaged landscaping, and flooded parts of their units. The Plaintiff also incurred engineering expenses to assess and counter the drainage issues. The repeated flooding was described as a nuisance and a continuing trespass, disrupting the use and enjoyment of their property.

Damages

The Plaintiff sought monetary damages to cover physical property damage, professional fees, and other expenses. They also requested attorney’s fees, court costs, and interest as permitted by law. Additionally, Spring Brook asked the court to grant an injunction to stop further water runoff from Columbus Gardens.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff: Spring Brook Terrace Association, Inc.

• Counsel for Plaintiff: William W. Ward

• Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Romeo Fraccaroli

• Defendants: Columbus Gardens of Stamford, Inc.| Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company | Alberto Gell | Lyric Civitella | Richard Burkhardt | Catherine Burkhardt | Andres Avila | Mikhail Gorelick | Marina Saenz | Susanna Likvornik

• Counsel for Defendants: Edward W. Gasser

Claims

Negligence and Improper Drainage Modifications

Columbus Gardens allegedly failed to follow safe drainage practices. The association installed a drainpipe without permits or engineering oversight. It also removed or failed to replace curbing that once prevented water runoff. These changes caused water to flow directly onto Spring Brook Terrace. Spring Brook claims the defendants had a duty to prevent foreseeable harm. Their failure to manage water flow properly resulted in repeated flooding and property damage.

Temporary Nuisance

The complaint states that water runoff from Columbus Gardens interfered with Spring Brook’s enjoyment of its property. Each storm allegedly produced flooding that disrupted daily life. Spring Brook argues that this repeated disruption qualifies as a temporary nuisance. The flooding affected lawns, walls, and residential areas, creating ongoing inconvenience for residents.

Trespass

Spring Brook accuses Columbus Gardens of allowing stormwater to enter its property without consent. They allege that this happens during every storm. The Plaintiffs claim each incident constitutes a separate act of trespass. According to the complaint, this recurring intrusion stems from deliberate modifications made by Columbus Gardens.

Individual Liability of Unit Owners

Spring Brook claimed the individual unit owners helped cause the drainage issues. The complaint says they participated in or supported the property changes. These actions allegedly contributed to the flooding. Spring Brook argues that the unit owners share liability for the resulting nuisance, negligence, and trespass.

Injunctive and Equitable Relief

The Plaintiffs sought a court order to stop the water discharge. They argued that financial compensation alone cannot fix the issue. An injunction would prevent future flooding. They also asked the court to grant any other fair relief needed to protect their property.

Legal Costs

Spring Brook requested reimbursement for legal fees and court costs. The Plaintiffs say the Defendants ignored repeated concerns. This inaction allegedly forced Spring Brook to pursue litigation. They argue the lawsuit became necessary due to the defendants’ failure to resolve the issue.

Defense

Columbus Gardens denied that their property modifications caused flooding or damage to Spring Brook Terrace. They stated the 2014 parking lot repaving did not redirect water onto the Plaintiff’s property. According to the Defendants, all improvements were lawful and did not increase runoff toward Spring Brook.

They also claimed they lacked sufficient information to respond to certain allegations. In these instances, they left the burden of proof to the Plaintiff. This applied particularly to claims about Columbus Gardens’ legal status before 2024.

Moreover, the defendants argued that the lawsuit was time-barred. They cited Connecticut General Statutes §§52-584 and 52-577, which set limits of two and three years to file such claims.

Lastly, the defense raised the doctrine of laches. They said Spring Brook delayed legal action despite knowing about the alleged drainage issues. This delay, they argued, was unreasonable and prejudiced the defense.

Jury Verdict

On February 6, 2025, the Jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Spring Brook Terrace Association, Inc., in its lawsuit against Columbus Gardens of Stamford, Inc. The Jury awarded:

• $250,000 in economic damages to Spring Brook Terrace Association, Inc.

The Jury found that Columbus Gardens acted negligently in modifying its drainage system, which led to repeated flooding of the Plaintiff’s property. They also concluded that Columbus Gardens created a temporary nuisance and committed continuing trespass by redirecting water onto the Plaintiff’s land.

No individual unit owners were held personally liable in the Jury’s final verdict.  

Court Documents:

Complaint

Verdict