Opinion
SC19027
10-07-2014
LANE v. COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CONCURRENCE
, with whom McDONALD, J., joins, concurring. I agree with the majority's general conclusions in this case. I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority's reliance on Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123, 84 A.3d 840 (2014), for the proposition that the "[r]eview of an unpreserved claim may be appropriate . . . when the minimal requirements for review are met and . . . the party who raised the unpreserved claim cannot prevail." (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; footnote omitted.) Id., 157-58; see footnotes 16 and 20 of the majority opinion. Although the majority correctly cites and applies this principle, I believe in retrospect that reviewing an unpreserved claim on which a party cannot prevail makes no sense because an inability to prevail leaves the party raising the claim in exactly the same position he would have been had the claim been deemed unreviewable. In addition, reviewing an unpreserved claim on which a party cannot prevail consumes valuable judicial resources that could be better utilized to review properly preserved claims. Accordingly, both logic and this court's well established interest in fostering judicial economy suggest that the unpreserved claim in the present case should not be reviewed.