*588 The defendants, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (J.B. Hunt), and David Bryant, appeal, and the plaintiff, *589 Dwight Daley, cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in accordance with a jury verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff. The threshold issue raised by the defendants on appeal that we must resolve is whether the court erred in declining to conduct a postverdict evidentiary hearing to determine whether one of the jurors, R.L., 1 had been competent to serve on the jury. We conclude that the court committed *637 error, and we reverse in part the judgment of the court and remand the case for further proceedings while retaining our jurisdiction over the remaining claims on appeal and over the cross appeal pending the outcome of the proceedings on remand.

The following facts, as found by the trial court in its memorandum of decision or as undisputed in the record, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the threshold issue before us. In December, 2013, the plaintiff commenced the underlying action against the defendants. In the operative complaint (complaint), the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants terminated his employment despite previously having assured him that he could return to work after he recovered from injuries he had sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident unrelated to his employment. The complaint included, inter alia, the following counts asserted against the defendants: violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-60 et seq. ; promissory estoppel; negligent misrepresentation; fraudulent misrepresentation; and, as to J.B. Hunt only, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants denied the plaintiff's substantive allegations and raised several special defenses. The plaintiff denied the allegations of the defendants' special defenses.

*590 The case was tried to a jury over the course of seven days in August, 2016. Shortly after 5 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2016, following less than one day of deliberations, 2 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him $200,000 in economic damages and $25,000 in noneconomic damages. In reaching its verdict, the jury answered several interrogatories. 3 On the record, the clerk twice read the jury's verdict and its answers to the interrogatories, and, after each recitation, the clerk asked the jury to confirm its verdict. All of the jurors, including R.L., replied "yes" on both occasions. 4 The trial court, Hon. William B. Rush , judge trial referee, thereupon accepted and recorded the verdict at 5:08 p.m.

On Friday, August 12, 2016, R.L. appeared at the courthouse where the underlying case had been tried and notified court staff that she was ready to continue jury deliberations. 5 Judge Rush spoke with *638 R.L. in the *591 civil caseflow office and reminded her that the jury had returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff the day before. Judge Rush also reminded R.L. of the amount of the verdict. In response to that information, R.L. became visibly upset and stated that she did not remember the jury concluding its deliberations or returning its verdict. Immediately thereafter, the court scheduled a status conference, which took place in chambers on August 16, 2016, during which he apprised the parties' attorneys of the events that had transpired regarding R.L. During the status conference, the court also provided the attorneys with a copy of a handwritten letter submitted by R.L. to the court, 6 which was dated August 12, 2016, in which R.L. wrote in relevant part: Upon arriving at the courthouse for the purpose of finishing the jury's deliberations, she was "surprise[d]" to learn that the jury had returned its verdict; she did not remember the jury concluding its deliberations or returning its verdict the day before; she did not have a prior history of "memory gaps," but she "definitely" had experienced such a memory lapse with regard to the jury's deliberations and the return of its verdict; she was concerned that she may have suffered "other gaps" during *592 the trial; she was sixty-four years old and intended to undergo a medical evaluation to determine whether she had "dementia /Alzheimer's [disease]," which had been recommended to her by a caregiver because her mother had been diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease at sixty years of age; and she disagreed with the amount of the verdict, as she would "never want [the defendants] to pay any more than [thirty, forty, maybe fifty] thousand [dollars]." (Emphasis in original.)

On September 16, 2016, the defendants filed a motion seeking a new trial on the ground that R.L. had been incompetent during the trial, thereby depriving them of their right to due process. 7 As alternative relief, the defendants requested that the court conduct an evidentiary hearing to evaluate R.L.'s competency. 8 The plaintiff opposed that motion.

On October 11, 2016, the trial court heard argument on, inter alia, the defendants' motion seeking a new trial or, alternatively, *639 an evidentiary hearing addressing R.L.'s competency during trial. By way of a memorandum of decision dated November 4, 2016, the court denied the motion seeking a new trial, including the alternative request for an evidentiary hearing. 9 The court found that, during jury selection, the parties had deemed R.L. to be an acceptable juror, and that none of the parties had challenged the competency of R.L. during the evidentiary portion of the trial, jury deliberations, or the return and acceptance of the jury's verdict. *593 It also found that R.L., along with the other jurors, twice confirmed the verdict on the record.

In addition, the court determined that, although a specific claim of juror misconduct generally would require an inquiry by the court, a juror's failure to remember deliberations that resulted in a verdict did not constitute juror misconduct. The court further stated in relevant part: "The instructions to the jury by the court ... instructed the jury that each juror must decide the case for themselves and not merely acquiesce in the verdict of their fellow jurors. The fact that, after the lengthy deliberations and the [rendition and acceptance of the verdict], a juror does not remember those events does not mean that they did not take place in accordance with our laws. The notes of the court indicate the instructions to the jury were completed at 11:03 a.m. and that the verdict was accepted shortly after 5 p.m. so that it is not a short period of time that [R.L.] cannot recall. However the failure to recall those events is itself a postverdict event. The holding of a hearing on [the] issue of the competence of [R.L.] during the course of the trial, the deliberations of the jury and the rendition and acceptance of the verdict would require, for a thorough analysis, an inquiry into areas which, under the law, the court cannot do. If [R.L.] cannot recall the deliberations and the rendition of the verdict it is doubtful that [R.L.] could reliably recall the state of her competency during the trial itself and any further inquiry would involve the court directly in the process of the deliberations. Accordingly, the request of the defendants to hold a hearing and the motion to set aside the verdict on the issues raised [concerning R.L. are] hereby denied." 10 This appeal and cross appeal followed.

*594 The threshold issue raised by the defendants on appeal is whether, in light of the events involving R.L. that transpired on Friday, August 12, 2016, the trial court erred in declining to conduct a postverdict evidentiary hearing to determine whether R.L. had been competent to serve as a juror during the trial. We conclude that, under the unique circumstances of the present case, the court committed error in failing to hold a postverdict evidentiary hearing to examine R.L.'s competency.

We begin by setting forth the relevant standard of review. "We consistently have held that, unless otherwise required by *640 statute, a rule of practice or a rule of evidence, whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing generally is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Customers Bank v. CB Associates, Inc. , 156 Conn. App. 678 , 695, 115 A.3d 461 (2015). The defendants have not identified a statute, a rule of practice, or a rule of evidence that required the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to evaluate R.L.'s competency and, thus, we review the court's decision declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing under the abuse of discretion standard of review.

As an initial matter, we note that, in cases involving specific allegations of juror misconduct , a trial court is required to perform a preliminary inquiry into those allegations. See Harrison v. Hamzi , 77 Conn. App. 510 , 522, 823 A.2d 446 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 905 , 832 A.2d 69 (2003). "[T]he form and scope of such an inquiry lie within a trial court's discretion.... That form and scope may vary from a preliminary inquiry of counsel, at one end of the spectrum, to a full evidentiary hearing at the other end of the spectrum, and, of course, all points in between. Whether a preliminary inquiry of *595 counsel, or some other limited form of proceeding, will lead to further, more extensive, proceedings will depend on what is disclosed during the initial limited proceedings and on the exercise of the trial court's sound discretion with respect thereto." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. In the present case, the threshold issue before us is whether the trial court erred in declining to conduct a postverdict evidentiary hearing to address a juror's competency during trial, rather than a juror's alleged misconduct. The parties have not cited, and our research has not revealed, any authoritative Connecticut case law that informs our analysis of this discrete issue. Thus, we turn to federal case law for guidance. See, e.g., Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc. , 284 Conn. 55 , 88, 931 A.2d 237 (2007).

In Sullivan v. Fogg , 613 F.2d 465 , 467-68 (2d Cir. 1980), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a trial court erred in failing to conduct a complete postverdict inquiry into a juror's competency. In Sullivan , approximately one month following a criminal jury trial in which the petitioner had been found guilty of two counts of murder and one count of illegal possession of a weapon, one of the jurors contacted the local district attorney to complain that he was being harassed by "voices." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 466 . The juror was brought before the trial court for questioning to determine whether he had been competent during the trial. Id. The juror presented testimony suggesting that he had experienced delusions or paranoid sensations during the trial and that he had heard "vibrations" throughout the trial that seemed amplified in the jury room. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. He testified that he had heard a "voice, [he had] heard [his] name," and that "they were spying maybe in favor of the [petitioner]," but that the "voices" had not influenced him in reaching his *596 verdict. (Internal quotation marks omitted). Id. He further testified that he previously had heard "voices" while serving as a juror in a prior unrelated criminal trial, which had resulted in a conviction. Id. The trial court appointed a psychiatrist to perform an independent evaluation of the juror. Id. In a written report submitted to the court, the court-appointed psychiatrist determined that, although the juror appeared to have a "schizoid personality with paranoid features ... vulnerable to a paranoid psychotic decompensation," the juror had been competent during the trial because the "voices" he had heard had not influenced *641 his verdict or prevented him from making a rational judgment on the merits of the case. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the court-appointed psychiatrist or to retain his own psychiatrist to testify. Id. On the basis of the court-appointed psychiatrist's report, the trial court concluded that no additional inquiry into the juror's competency was necessary. Id. The petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal. Id. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, which was denied. Id.

On appeal from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner claimed that his right to due process had been violated as a result of the trial court's failure to conduct a full and fair hearing to evaluate the juror's competency. Id. The Second Circuit agreed with the petitioner that a full inquiry into the juror's competency was necessary. Id., at 467-68 . In reaching that conclusion, the Second Circuit pronounced: "Due process requires that jurors be sane and competent during trial.... Once a preliminary showing of incompetence or juror misconduct has been made there is a corresponding right to an inquiry into the relevant surrounding circumstances.... Where the allegations involve considerations internal to the jury deliberation process, such as juror insanity, this court has *597 required strong evidence that it is likely that the juror suffered from such incompetence before ordering a post-verdict inquiry.... This high threshold is intended to avoid post-verdict harassment of jurors, preserve the finality of judgments, discourage meritless applications for post-verdict hearings, and reduce the likelihood of and temptation for jury tampering." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 467 . The Second Circuit determined that there had been a "sufficient showing of incompetence to justify, indeed to require, a further inquiry" into the juror's competency, emphasizing in particular the juror's unsolicited statements that were "strongly suggestive of incompetence during trial and deliberations." 11 Id. As relief, the Second Circuit *642 reversed the *598 habeas court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to grant the petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the state reopened the hearing and provided the petitioner with an opportunity to cross-examine the court-appointed psychiatrist or the petitioner was granted a new trial. Id., at 468 .

We adopt the standard set forth in Sullivan , namely, that there must be a preliminary showing of strong evidence that a juror likely was incompetent during his or her jury service before a trial court is required to conduct a full postverdict inquiry into the juror's competency. Id., at 467 . We are persuaded that such a standard serves the interests identified in Sullivan , namely, the avoidance of postverdict harassment of jurors, the preservation of the finality of judgments, the discouragement of meritless applications for postverdict hearings, and the reduction of the likelihood of and temptation for jury tampering. Id.

In the present case, the defendants assert that there was sufficient evidence in the record indicating that R.L. likely was not competent to serve on the jury and, therefore, the court should have held a postverdict evidentiary hearing to inquire into R.L.'s competency. In response, the plaintiff argues, inter alia, that there was no evidence in the record suggesting that R.L. had been incompetent during her jury service. We agree with the defendants. One day after the jury had finished deliberating and returned its verdict, R.L. spoke with Judge Rush personally and informed him that she could not recall the conclusion of the jury's deliberations or *599 the return of the verdict. In addition, in her letter submitted to the court, R.L. wrote that she was "surprise[d]" to learn that the jury had returned its verdict, she "definitely" had experienced a "memory gap" with respect to the jury's deliberations and the return of the verdict, and she was concerned that she may have suffered other mental lapses during the trial. She further wrote that she planned to undergo a medical evaluation, which had been recommended to her by a caregiver, to determine whether she suffered from "dementia /Alzheimer's [disease]," particularly given that her mother had been diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease at approximately her age. Although there had not been any overt indication prior to the jury returning its verdict that R.L. may have been suffering from a medical condition that rendered her incompetent during her jury service, we conclude that R.L.'s statements to Judge Rush and her letter submitted to the court constitute strong evidence that R.L. likely had been incompetent during her jury service, such that a full inquiry by the court into R.L.'s competency was necessary. 12 Thus, the *643 court erred in failing to hold a postverdict evidentiary *600 hearing to determine whether R.L. had been competent to serve as a juror during the trial. 13

Having concluded that the trial court committed error in failing to conduct a full postverdict inquiry into R.L.'s competency during the trial, we reverse the portion of the judgment denying the defendants' motion seeking a new trial or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing addressing R.L.'s competency and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether R.L. had been competent to serve as a juror. 14 Deciding the form *601 and scope of the hearing to be held on remand is within the discretion of the trial court. 15 See, e.g., *644 Sullivan v. Fogg , supra, 613 F.2d at 468 (trial court has discretion to determine form of postverdict evidentiary hearing examining juror's competency); see also, e.g., State v. Biggs , 176 Conn. App. 687 , 709, 171 A.3d 457 (trial courts have wide discretion in conducting evidentiary hearings to assess allegations of juror misconduct), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 975 , 174 A.3d 193 (2017). 16 After conducting the evidentiary hearing and determining whether R.L. was competent to serve on the jury, the trial court must decide whether to grant the defendants' motion seeking a new trial. 17 *602 This conclusion effectively disposes of the threshold issue before us. In addition to appealing from the trial court's denial of their motion seeking a new trial or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing addressing R.L.'s competency, the defendants claim that the court erred in denying (1) their motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and (2) a request submitted by them to charge the jury on mitigation of damages. In his cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erroneously denied (1) his motion for punitive damages, (2) his motion seeking postjudgment interest, 18 and (3) a request submitted by him to charge the jury on retaliation in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. Rather than addressing these other claims at this time, we believe that the wiser approach, under the unique circumstances of this case, is to retain our jurisdiction over the remaining claims on appeal and over the cross appeal pending the outcome of the proceedings on remand, which may obviate the need for appellate review of these other claims. See, e.g., Tayco Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 294 Conn. 673 , 688, 986 A.2d 290 (2010) (reversing *645 judgment denying motion to dismiss and remanding case for further proceedings while retaining jurisdiction over appeal to review, as necessary, other claims raised on appeal); *603 Higgins v. Karp , 239 Conn. 802 , 811, 687 A.2d 539 (1997) (reversing judgments and vacating denials of motions to set aside defaults, and remanding case for redetermination of whether good cause existed to set aside defaults while retaining jurisdiction over appeal to review other claims raised on appeal in event that trial court did not find good cause to set aside defaults); Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford Inc. , 85 Conn. App. 663 , 675, 680-81, 858 A.2d 860 (2004) (affirming in part and reversing in part judgment and remanding case for additional proceedings on plaintiff's claims under Common Interest Ownership Act, General Statutes § 47-200 et seq., while retaining jurisdiction over appeal to consider plaintiff's claim regarding validity of association's bylaws pending outcome of proceedings on remand), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005) ; Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Patriot General Ins. Co. , 45 Conn. App. 630 , 633, 697 A.2d 694 (1997) (ordering limited remand for trial court to assure compliance with applicable notice requirement while retaining jurisdiction over case); O'Bymachow v. O'Bymachow , 10 Conn. App. 76 , 78-79, 521 A.2d 599 (1987) (setting aside judgment declining to consider motion to open and remanding case to trial court to adjudicate motion to open while retaining jurisdiction over appeal from denial of motion for modification pending resolution of motion to open); see also General Statutes § 51-197a (b) (providing that "[t]he Appellate Court may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law").

The judgment is reversed only as to the denial of the defendants' motion seeking a new trial or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We retain jurisdiction over the case in order to resolve, as necessary, the remaining claims presented in the appeal *604 and the cross appeal pending the outcome of the proceedings on remand.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.