2000 Ct. Sup. 5336
No. CV97-0160941 SConnecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
May 5, 2000
ORDER
HICKEY, JUDGE.
The court reaffirms its earlier ruling denying the defendant’s motion to strike count seven of the complaint alleging violation of General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The defendant insists that a consumer relationship must exist between the parties for a plaintiff to state a claim for violation of CUTPA. However, Connecticut courts have stated that “the application of CUTPA does not depend upon a consumer relationship.” Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen, 232 Conn. 480, 496, 656 A.2d 1009 (1995); see also Thames River Recycling, Inc. v.Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 720 A.2d 242 (1998).
HICKEY, J.