The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Business Law

Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3782

AC40592 - R.D. Clark & Sons, Inc. v. Clark ("In this case involving the buyout of minority shares of a closely held corporation, the plaintiff, R.D. Clark & Sons, Inc. (corporation), appeals, and the defendant James Clark cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court determining the fair value of those shares, establishing the terms of payment for the purchase of those shares, and awarding attorney's fees to the defendant. On appeal, the corporation asserts that the trial court erred in determining the value of the defendant's shares by (1) not tax affecting the corporation's earnings in analyzing its valuation, (2) not applying a minority discount to the value of the defendant's shares, and awarding the defendant attorney's and expert witness fees and costs, on the ground that the defendant suffered minority oppression at the hands of the plaintiffs, (3) not applying a marketability discount to the value of the defendant's shares, and (4) incorrectly accounting for a certain loan due to the corporation from the defendant and ordering that certain sums be paid to the defendant within thirty days of the date of judgment. On cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by not awarding him attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the value of his shares in the corporation in accordance with the retainer agreement that he had signed with his counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3769

AC41439 - Asselin & Vieceli Partnership, LLC v. Washburn ("The defendant, Steven T. Washburn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his demand for a trial de novo following an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, Asselin & Vieceli Partnership, LLC. The trial court also confirmed the arbitration award upon an application filed by the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly confirmed the arbitration award because the arbitrator had failed to take an oath required by General Statutes § 52-414 (d), the plaintiff failed to file certain required documents required by General Statutes § 52-421 (a) and the arbitrator exceeded her powers or imperfectly executed them in violation of General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4).We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment granting the plaintiff's application to confirm the arbitration award.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3709

AC41366, AC41365 - Kelly v. Kurtz ("In this case arising from the buyout of an oral surgery practice, the plaintiff, Dorrance T. Kelly, DDS, and the defendants, Marshall D. Kurtz, DMD, Marshall D. Kurtz, DMD, PC, and Danbury Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Associates, LLC (DOMSA), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered, following a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiff, in the amount of $2,150,000.To establish the terms of the buyout, the parties executed three documents: a purchase and sale agreement, an operating agreement, and a supplementary agreement. On appeal, the defendants claim, in AC 41366, that the trial court erred in denying their motion to set aside the jury's verdict on the plaintiff's claims of breach of the supplementary agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the supplementary agreement on the grounds that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain the jury's finding of breach of the supplementary agreement, and (2) the jury's awards of damages on the plaintiff's claims of breach of the supplementary agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the supplementary agreement were inconsistent. The plaintiff claims, in AC 41365, that the trial court erred in (1) granting the defendants' motion to set aside the jury's verdict on his claims of invasion of privacy by misappropriation of his name, tortious interference with his business expectancies, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statues § 42-110a et seq., and unjust enrichment; and (2) dismissing his claim of breach of the operating agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the operating agreement on the ground that he lacked standing to bring those claims. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42602 - Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank ("The plaintiff, Meribear Productions, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of the defendants, Joan Frank and George Frank. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' joint appeal was untimely and, thus, subject to dismissal. See Practice Book §§ 63-1 and 66-8. In response, the defendants filed a motion for permission to file a late appeal. The defendants argued that permission to file a late appeal was warranted because they would suffer a loss of their appellate rights if the appeal was not allowed. We agreed with the defendants and, therefore, granted nunc pro tunc the defendants' motion to file a late appeal, and denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, indicating in our order that an opinion would follow. We write to explain our reasons for permitting this late appeal.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3703

AC39388 - Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC ("This appeal arises out of a dispute between the plaintiff, Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P., and the defendants Pursuit Opportunity Fund I, L.P. (POF), Pursuit Opportunity Fund I Master Ltd. (POF Master), Pursuit Capital Management Fund I, L.P. (PCM), Pursuit Capital Master (Cayman) Ltd. (PCM Master), Pursuit Partners, LLC (Pursuit Partners), Pursuit Investment Management, LLC (PIM), Northeast Capital Management, LLC (Northeast), Anthony Schepis, and Frank Canelas, Jr. The central issue of this appeal is the defendants' claim that the court improperly interpreted the agreements between the parties to hold that certain defendants were liable for their failure to distribute to the plaintiff its share of a substantial contingent asset in which it had an interest.

The defendants appeal, and the plaintiff cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, partially in favor of the plaintiff as to certain defendants on its complaint and in favor of the plaintiff on the defendants' counterclaim. The defendants also appeal from the orders of the trial court granting the plaintiff's postjudgment motion to increase the amount of a previously secured prejudgment remedy, and granting the plaintiff's motion for discovery to secure the additional prejudgment remedy attachment.

Addressing the parties' various contentions, we conclude that (1) the court properly interpreted the agreements between the parties in concluding that the plaintiff prevailed on its breach of contract claim, (2) the court properly rejected the defendants' breach of contract counterclaim, (3) the court properly concluded that the plaintiff prevailed on its breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, (4) the court properly concluded that the plaintiff could not prevail on its conversion claim, (5) the court properly struck the plaintiff's Connecticut statutory causes of action, (6) the court improperly concluded that all of the defendants who had signed the settlement agreement were liable for breach of contract and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (7) the court properly determined the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff, (8) the court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to increase the amount of the prejudgment remedy, and (9) the defendants' claim that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for postjudgment discovery was not properly preserved, and, thus, we decline to review it. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil Prohibited

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3679

Our Enforcing Money Judgments Research Guide (Table 9) has been updated to reflect Public Act 19-181, which eliminates Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil in Connecticut. In addition, the Public Act Summary states that "[t]his act sets specific conditions that must be met in granting a veil piercing claim to override limitations on a domestic entity interest holder’s liability in connection with the entity’s transactions. (Under the act, a 'domestic entity' is an entity whose internal affairs are governed by Connecticut law.) In doing so, the act generally codifies the 'instrumentality test,' one of two methods Connecticut courts use to determine whether to grant a veil-piercing claim." Below is revised table 9 in the Enforcing Money Judgments Research Guide.

Table 9: Enforcing Money Judgments



Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3673

AC41467 - Weinshel, Wynnick & Associates, LLC v. Bongiorno ("The plaintiff, Weinshel, Wynnick & Associates, LLC, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants, Marie Bongiorno, individually (Marie Bongiorno), and Marie Bongiorno, executrix of the estate of George Bongiorno (Marie Bongiorno, executrix), on its claims of successor liability and breach of contract. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly (1) concluded that Marie Bongiorno could not be held personally liable for the plaintiff's damages pursuant to a theory of successor liability, and (2) rendered judgment in favor of Marie Bongiorno, executrix, on the basis of General Statutes 52-599 (b). We affirm the judgment in favor of Marie Bongiorno, and reverse the judgment in favor of Marie Bongiorno, executrix.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3664

AC40693 - Crosskey Architects, LLC v. POKO Partners, LLC ("The defendants POKO Partners, LLC, POKO Reservoir Yaremich Developers, LLC, POKO Cape Loom Managers, LLC, One Morningside Group, LLC, One Morningside Managers, LLC, One Morningside Owners, LLC, Capehart Ventures, LLC, POKO Management Corp., Richard K. Olson, and Pamela Olson, as executrix of the estate of Kenneth M. Olson, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in part in favor of the plaintiff, Crosskey Architects, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) improperly pierced the corporate veil, (2) improperly found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages on the theory of quantum meruit and (3) abused its discretion in awarding statutory prejudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a on the theory of quantum meruit. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3648

AC40014 - A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Saint Paul ("The plaintiff, A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its application to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of the defendants, James Saint Paul and Julie J. Saint Paul, and granting the defendants' application to confirm the arbitration award. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly (1) dismissed its application to vacate as untimely, (2) engaged thereafter in a review of the substance of the plaintiff's application to vacate and concluded that the arbitration award did not manifest an egregious or patently irrational application of the law, and (3) awarded the defendants $2185 in supplemental attorney's fees. We conclude that the court properly dismissed the plaintiff's application to vacate as untimely and did not abuse its discretion in awarding supplemental attorney's fees. In light of our conclusion that the court properly dismissed the plaintiff's application to vacate as untimely, we also conclude that the court erred by reviewing the substance of the application but that such error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3618

AC40715 - DeRose v. Jason Robert's, Inc. (Arbitration; whether trial court properly denied motion to vacate arbitration award; "The defendants, Jason Robert's, Inc., and Robert D. Hartmann, Sr., appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting an application to confirm the award filed by the plaintiff, Michael DeRose. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) found that the arbitrator effectively had defaulted the defendants for failing to appear at the final arbitration hearing, and that this allegedly erroneous factual finding colored the court's decision-making process with respect to the motion to vacate; (2) failed to provide the defendants with an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the motion to vacate; (3) granted a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed at the arbitrator and his files; (4) failed to vacate the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator had not addressed the entirety of the submission; (5) confirmed an award that violated public policy; and (6) confirmed an award made in manifest disregard of the law in violation of General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3599

SC20133 - Reclaimant Corp. v. Deutsch (Conflict of laws; unjust enrichment; statutes of limitations (§§ 52-576 and 52-577); motion for summary judgment on ground that plaintiff failed to timely commence action; claim that plaintiff failed to commence action within three year limitation period set forth in § 17-607 (c) of Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act; claim that trial court incorrectly determined that Delaware law rather than Connecticut law governed issue of whether plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims were time barred; "The narrow issue presented by this appeal is whether the statute of limitations of the state of Connecticut or the state of Delaware governs the unjust enrichment claims brought by the plaintiff, Reclaimant Corp., against the defendants, William J. Deutsch and Laurence B. Simon, seeking recovery for alleged overpayments issued to the defendants by the plaintiff's putative predecessor in interest pursuant to a limited partnership agreement. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims were governed by Delaware law and were time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations in the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (DRULPA), Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 17-607 (c) (2005). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that summary judgment was improper because Connecticut law governs the timeliness of its unjust enrichment claims and that those claims timely were filed under Connecticut law.

We conclude that Delaware law governs the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties arising out of the limited partnership agreement but that Connecticut law governs matters of judicial administration and procedure. We further conclude that, because the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims have a common-law origin, the limitation period properly is "characterized as procedural because it functions only as a qualification on the remedy to enforce the preexisting right." Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 230 Conn. 335, 347, 644 A.2d 1297 (1994). Thus, Connecticut law, rather than Delaware law, controls the timeliness of the plaintiff's claims. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")


Business Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3579

SC20013, SC20014 - McKay v. Longman ("These consolidated appeals require us to consider three main issues: (1) whether a plaintiff who is neither a party to a mortgage nor an intended beneficiary thereof has standing to challenge the enforceability of that mortgage under the Connecticut Limited Liability Company Act, General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 34-130; (2) whether specified transfers between an owner of property and the limited liability companies of which he is either an officer or equity holder constitute fraudulent transfers under the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), General Statutes §§ 52-552e (a) (1) and (2) and 52-552f; and (3) whether this court recognizes the doctrine of reverse piercing of the corporate veil and, if so, whether the trial court properly applied the doctrine to the facts in the present case.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3562

AC41463 - Clasby v. Zimmerman ("The defendant, Bradford Estates, LLC, is a general contracting business hired by the plaintiffs, Robert Clasby and Krista Clasby, to raise and remodel their shoreline home, which was extensively damaged by Hurricane Sandy.The parties agreed to arbitrate disputes that arose during the construction project, and the defendant now appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application to confirm a February 4, 2017 arbitration award. The defendant contends that the February 4, 2017 award conclusively established that the defendant was entitled to collect from the plaintiffs a balance of $51,856.65 in materials and labor for certain cabinetry work."

"....For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court, and remand the matter with direction to grant the application to confirm the February 4, 2017 award, but to deny the remainder of the relief requested in the application.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3553

AC40855 - Stone v. East Coast Swappers, LLC ("The plaintiff, Thomas G. Stone III, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, finding that the defendant, East Coast Swappers, LLC, had violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and awarding the plaintiff compensatory damages, but declining to award punitive damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred when it failed to award him attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41675 - Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. ("The defendant, A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding supplemental attorney's fees to the plaintiff, Sharay Freeman. In the underlying action, the plaintiff brought a two count complaint in which she claimed a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and fraudulent misrepresentation related to the defendant's failure to refund the plaintiff's $2500 deposit for an attempted sale of a used vehicle. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff on both counts, and this court affirmed the judgment on appeal. See Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., 174 Conn. App. 649, 651, 166 A.3d 857, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 927, 171 A.3d 60 (2017). On August 17, 2017, the plaintiff filed with the trial court a motion for supplemental attorney's fees. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court subsequently granted in part the plaintiff's motion for supplemental attorney's fees and awarded her $49,980.

In the present appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) erred in awarding the plaintiff supplemental attorney's fees, and (2) abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $49,980. We disagree.")


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3536

SC20032, SC20033, SC20036 - Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc. ("This certified appeal poses the question of whether and under what circumstances arbitration of a construction dispute between a property owner and a general contractor is res judicata as to the claims of subcontractors that did not participate in the arbitration. We agree with the Appellate Court that, in the absence of clear evidence of contrary intent by the parties, subcontractors are presumptively in privity with the general contractor on a construction project for purposes of res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

SC0034, SC20035 - Girolametti v. VP Buildings, Inc.


Business Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3435

SC20037, SC20038 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (Action to Enforce a Foreign Judgment; "These interlocutory appeals require us to determine the preclusive effect, if any, to give in the present action to the findings and judgment rendered by the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (English court) in a prior action (English action) brought by the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, against the named defendant, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (Sebastian). The English action, tried to the bench in a judicial proceeding lasting forty-five days, resulted in a $243,023,089 judgment, plus interest, against Sebastian in November, 2013. Unable to collect on its English judgment, the plaintiff commenced the present action in Connecticut to enforce the English judgment against Sebastian and the individual defendant, Alexander Vik, who at all relevant times has been the sole shareholder and sole director of Sebastian. In its Connecticut action, the plaintiff seeks to pierce Sebastian’s corporate veil and hold Vik personally liable, as Sebastian’s alter ego, for his corporation’s judgment debt. Each of the parties claims an entitlement in the present case to a preclusive effect that inures to their respective advantage as a result of the final judgment rendered in the English action. The present appeals arise out of the unsuccessful efforts of each of the parties to persuade the trial court that this action must be decided in its respective favor on the basis of the alleged preclusive effect of the English judgment. The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court that none of the parties is entitled to the claimed preclusive effect. Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 174 Conn. App. 573, 585–86, 166 A.3d 716 (2017). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3265

AC39973 - DE Auto Transport, Inc. v. Eurolite, LLC (Wrongful repossession, statutory theft; "The plaintiff, DE Auto Transport, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the defendants, Eurolite, LLC (Eurolite), and Leopold Zayaczkowski. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in its damages analysis. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3109

AC40164 - Abrams v. PH Architects, LLC ("This appeal arises out of a dispute between a homeowner and the architectural firm and general contractor that he hired to design and perform substantial renovations to his home and surrounding property in Greenwich. The plaintiff, Marc Abrams, appeals, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered against him on his complaint and on the counterclaims of the defendants, PH Architects, LLC (PH), and V.A.S. Construction, Inc. (VAS). The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) failed to enforce provisions in his contracts with VAS and PH related to the processing of change orders and invoices; (2) failed to find that VAS had breached a separate contract governing the construction of a stone wall and fence on the property; (3) failed to enforce provisions in his contract with PH pursuant to which PH agreed to provide contract administration services; (4) failed to conclude that PH was liable for professional negligence because it had breached the professional standard of care for architects; and (5) made clearly erroneous factual findings with respect to a ‘punch list’ that was prepared on behalf of the plaintiff by a third party. We are not persuaded by the plaintiff’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC39617 - National Waste Associates, LLC v. Scharf ("The plaintiff, National Waste Associates, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered, in part, in favor of the defendants, Danielle Scharf, Carl Slusarczyk, Waste Harmonics, LLC (Waste Harmonics), and Omega Waste Management, Inc. (Omega). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the plaintiff could not prevail on its unjust enrichment claims, (2) a nonsolicitation provision in agreements between the plaintiff and its former employees was unenforceable as to its prospective customers, and (3) General Statutes § 35-57 (a) bars its claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3019

AC39172 - Lynn v. Bosco ("This case is about the propriety of a judicial remedy binding a company that had been cited in as a party by the plaintiffs, Jack E. Lynn and Jeffrey Lynn, for notice purposes only and against whom no allegations had been pleaded. The defendant Aerospace Techniques, Inc. (company), appeals from the January 11, 2016 judgment of the trial court ordering the company to pay the owners of 141 shares of treasury stock issued to the defendants Clyde E. Warner, Robert J. Bosco, Sr. (Bosco), Anthony Parillo, Jr., and Richard B. Polivy in exchange for the return of the 141 shares to the company. The company claims that the trial court acted beyond the scope of its authority by entering an order that imposed a remedy on the company, although neither party made any allegations against or sought relief from the company in the operative complaint. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2957

AC38443 - Chioffi v. Martin (Breach of fiduciary duty; "This action arises out of the dissolution of a registered limited liability partnership. The defendant Christopher G. Martin appeals, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Mark P. Chioffi, on the count of the plaintiff's complaint which alleged breach of contract. The trial court awarded Chioffi $34,120 in compensatory damages, $103,000 in attorney's fees, and $6226.73 in costs. The defendant claims on appeal that the court erred in (1) finding a breach of § 3.02 of the parties' partnership agreement; (2) finding a breach of § 4.03 of the partnership agreement; (3) ordering the defendant to pay damages directly to the plaintiff rather than ordering a reduction in the defendant's capital account in the partnership; and (4) awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff. The plaintiff cross appealed, claiming that the court (1) erred in not finding a breach of fiduciary duty, as alleged in count one of his complaint; (2) erred in its calculation of damages; and (3) abused its discretion in holding that the plaintiff waived his claim for an accounting. We agree with the defendant's second and fourth claims and the plaintiff's first claim. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the court and remand the case for a hearing on attorney's fees. We otherwise affirm the court's judgment.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2946

AC38527 - DeLeo v. Equale & Cirone, LLP ("The plaintiff, Derek J. DeLeo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Equale & Cirone, LLP (partnership), and Anthony W. Cirone, Jr., on the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendants’ special defenses, claim of setoff, and counterclaim. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the trial court (1) committed plain error when it failed to order the dissolution of the partnership; (2) improperly estopped him from challenging the noncompete provision in the partnership agreement; (3) improperly found that the defendants did not waive the enforcement of the noncompete provision; and (4) improperly concluded that the noncompete clause in the partnership agreement was enforceable. We agree with the plaintiff’s final claim, and we, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


1 2