City appeals ruling in former assistant police chief case
BRIDGEPORT — The city is appealing a decision by a Superior Court judge not to throw out the lawsuit of a former assistant police chief who claims he was defrauded of the police chief’s job.
The city filed an appeal Friday with the state Appellate Court of Judge John Cordani’s January decision in the lawsuit filed by former assistant police chief James Nardozzi. Nardozzi filed suit against the city and former Police Chief Armando Perez and Personnel Director David Dunn.
Hartford lawyer James Healy, who represents the city in the appeal, declined comment.
“We continue to believe that Mr. Nardozzi was the victim of an illegal scheme to defraud the citizens of Bridgeport of the best candidate for police chief,” said Nardozzi’s lawyer, Eric Brown, in an emailed statement. “During his time as Assistant Chief he brought overtime costs under control and he constantly delivered for the taxpayers. We are undaunted by the City's appeals. They will take their course. We anticipate a successful outcome once all the evidence is heard by a Bridgeport jury.”
In January, in a 14- page decision, Judge Cordani refused motions by the city and lawyers for Perez and Dunn to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Nardozzi.
No trial date in the case has yet been set.
In his lawsuit, Nardozzi claims Mayor Joe Ganim conspired with Perez and Dunn to fix the selection process so that Perez would be selected as chief.
In October, Perez, 64, and Dunn, 73, pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and making a false statement. They each face up to 24 months in prison when they are sentenced in April.
Federal prosecutors said Dunn assisted Perez by providing him with the test questions in advance and two unnamed police officers helped Perez write his application and test responses. Ganim had to pick a police chief from the top three qualified candidates. He ultimately awarded the five- year contract to Perez.
There have been no charges made against the mayor in the case.
“Although the mayor had discretion to choose a chief of police from the top three candidates, as with any public official, the mayor’s discretion was not unlimited,” the judge wrote. “The mayor was constrained to exercise his discretion reasonably and not in a manner to advance corrupt purposes. Here, the plaintiff alleges that the mayor was part of the scheme to rig the process so that he could chose Perez. Clearly, the city cannot use the foregoing type of discretion as a shield.”
Last year, the City Council approved a $ 180,000 settlement — plus legal fees — for Nardozzi, who was fired by Ganim after the mayor took office in 2016. Nardozzi, who was hired in 2012 by thenMayor Bill Finch following a national search, sued the city claiming he was wrongfully fired.
In October 2020, Nardozzi sued the city, Perez and Dunn claiming he was a victim of their conspiracy to rig the examination process for police chief in 2018. He claims that while his first lawsuit was pending, he had discussions with Ganim about coming back to manage the police department; in 2018 he applied to become police chief.
He claims he was removed from contention for police chief as a result of cheating by Perez and Dunn.
Nardozzi was number four on the chief’s list, according to court documents. Beside Perez, Bridgeport Police Captain Roderick Porter and then- New Haven Assistant Chief Luiz Casanova made the cut.
“If Mr. Nardozzi had gotten to the top three, he would have been able to prove he was the most qualified candidate and it’s likely he would have been chosen,” Brown told the judge during a hearing.
The lawyers for the city, Perez and Dunn have claimed that the release signed by Nardozzi when he accepted the settlement in his first lawsuit excludes him from suing them now. But the judge disagreed. “The plaintiff has asserted fraud in the inducement and creation of the settlement agreement which itself potentially calls into question the validity and enforceability of the settlement agreement,” the judge stated.
Cordani did dismiss one count of the lawsuit that claimed that if the city had truthfully advised Nardozzi that there was cheating being done in the chief selection process, he would have “gained additional leverage in negotiations to settle his lawsuit.”
The judge said there is a privilege against the use of statements and omissions made outside court hearings of pending litigation.
“The litigation privilege now prevents the plaintiff from alleging fraud based upon information allegedly withheld in settlement negotiations concerning pending litigation,” the judge stated.