State, landlord still fighting over $10,000 COVID fine
BRIDGEPORT — Nearly a year after Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration levied the first $10,000 pandemic-related fine in the state against a Bridgeport property owner for allegedly violating coronavirus health restrictions, officials are still trying to collect.
Under the governor’s November 2020 executive order, the Connecticut Department of Public Health penalized Robert Pierce, whose tenants at 456 Connecticut Ave. hosted a packed Dec. 20 party where two men were fatally shot.
Those homicides of 19year-old Jaheim Warren, of Derby, and 24-year-old Andrew Stephenson, of Bridgeport, remain unsolved.
But the state on Dec. 31 fined Pierce $10,000, the civil penalty established the month prior by Lamont to crack down on businesses that flouted capacity limitations, a curfew and other rules in place at that time to help stop the coronavirus’ spread. It was, the state has previously said, the first of just two such fines levied.
Pierce filed an appeal with the Public Health Hearing Office which was the subject of a June teleconference. He represented himself and said his tenants should instead be liable.
On Sept. 21 Olinda Morales, the hearing officer, recommended the state health commissioner deny Pierce’s appeal and that Pierce pay his fine by Oct. 21.
He did not. On Monday a health department spokesman said Pierce has instead opted to take the matter to the next level, exercising his right to request an oral argument. That has been scheduled for Dec. 9. Morales will then issue a final decision to the health commissioner which can subsequently be fought in court.
During the June hearing, Kerry Colson, an assistant attorney general representing the health department, said, “This is a pretty straightforward case we have here . ... The governor issued an executive order ... and that allows for a $10,000 civil penalty to the owner of the non-residential premises who violates the sector rules.”
In Pierce’s case, Colson continued, Bridgeport police found evidence that on last Dec. 20, 456 Connecticut Ave. was the scene of a “commercial gathering” that “exceeded 25 or more people.”
Bridgeport Police Capt. Brian Fitzgerald and Patrolman Eduardo Vedarrde also testified under oath in June that, based on witness accounts and video footage, an over-capacity party had taken place at that location.
Vedarrde, who testified he arrived on the scene around two minutes after shots were fired, said he found a “very chaotic” situation with “a lot of people running away from the club through the front door and through the back door.”
“My estimate was going on 40-plus,” he testified.
And Fitzgerald, who said he arrived on scene about 25 minutes later, testified he observed “30 to 40” people outside who “clearly came from inside 456 Connecticut
Avenue” along with numerous parked cars. He said Stratford and state police were contacted to help with crowd control.
Fitzgerald added that inside “it was warm as if it had been recently heated” with wet floors, overturned furniture, discarded clothing and costume jewelry, alcoholic beverages, mixers and cupcakes laid out on a bar.
Pierce during the June hearing responded, “Is every property owner and land owner responsible for what happens with their tenants?”
According to a one-year lease from last September that Pierce had filed with his appeal in January, he rented the property to Latisha Nelson and Travis Jackson for “social gathering, bar, church.” The document further stated Nelson and Jackson intended to use 456 Connecticut Ave. — which at the time of the December party and shootings was still identified with signage from former occupant Mango’z Sports Bar — for “social gathering, bar, church.”
Neither Nelson nor Jackson participated in the June appeal hearing and they could not be reached for comment.
Morales in her Sept. 21 recommendation called Pierce’s argument he should not be held responsible “immaterial” because Lamont’s executive order “provides the (health) department discretion in deciding to fine either the landlord or tenant regardless of the landlord’s involvement.”
“The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Appellant (Pierce) is the owner of the property (and) Appellant’s claim that he was not in control over the property at the time of the incident lacks merit,”
Morales continued. “Robert Pierce testified in defense of the Appellant but did not offer any first-hand knowledge that contradicted the department’s witnesses or police reports as he was not present on the premises at the time of the incident.”
Pierce during the June hearing had claimed that the testimony given by Fitzgerald and Vedarrde had “a lot of holes” but offered little to no evidence or specifics. He challenged Vedarrde’s ability to see people exiting the front and back of the building upon arriving at the scene.
“As far as the front and back door, you cannot see the front and back door at the same time,” Pierce had said. “It’s impossible.”