City Fish Market, Inc. v. Varipapa, No. Cv01-0508994s (Mar. 18, 2002) Ct Page 3428

Connecticut Superior Court

City Fish Market, Inc. v. Varipapa, No. Cv01-0508994s (Mar. 18, 2002) Ct Page 3428

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3427

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 18, 2002

DocketNo. CV01-0508994S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3427 (City Fish Market, Inc. v. Varipapa, No. Cv01-0508994s (Mar. 18, 2002) Ct Page 3428) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City Fish Market, Inc. v. Varipapa, No. Cv01-0508994s (Mar. 18, 2002) Ct Page 3428, 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3427 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This matter, in the nature of a contract collection, was heard on December 6, 2001 by fact finder Dennis G. Ciccarillo, and a decision was rendered on January 22, 2002. On February 6, 2002, the plaintiff objected to the report, and on February 7, 2002, the defendant moved that the report be accepted. Thereafter, this court heard argument and now grants the defendant's motion.

The matter concerns an outstanding balance of $12,829.74 for seafood purchased by the entity known as Leon's Restaurant. The plaintiff sued the named defendant d/b/a and the defendant argued that the restaurant was owned by a corporation. The fact finder ruled for the defendant essentially finding that the named defendant neither ordered the subject seafood nor agreed to pay for any seafood. Indeed, he found that the plaintiff's manager testified that, without direction from anyone, she added the defendant's name to the invoices. The fact finder noted, however, that the named defendant did, on occasion, respond to inquiries from the plaintiff about outstanding bills and that subsequently monies were paid.

In Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. Mansour Builders, Inc., 20 Conn. App. 420,423, 567 A.2d 1250 (1989), our Appellate court stated that, "[a] reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of facts. This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court . . . or attorney trial referees. "(Internal citations omitted.) Id., 423. The court added that "attorney trial referees and fact finders share the same function. . . . (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The plaintiff is clearly asking this court to substitute the plaintiff's view of the facts for that of the fact finder. This court finds nothing erroneous with his conclusions and thus refuses to vacate that decision. See, Shaw v. L.A. Socci,24 Conn. App. 223, 229, 587 A.2d 429 (1991). The fact that the plaintiff made the invoices out to "LEONS REST ED/LEON/JOSEPH VARIPAPA" does not make the named defendant personally liable for the corporation's debts.

Berger, J. CT Page 3429

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This matter, in the nature of a contract collection, was heard on December 6, 2001 by fact finder Dennis G. Ciccarillo, and a decision was rendered on January 22, 2002. On February 6, 2002, the plaintiff objected to the report, and on February 7, 2002, the defendant moved that the report be accepted. Thereafter, this court heard argument and now grants the defendant's motion.

The matter concerns an outstanding balance of $12,829.74 for seafood purchased by the entity known as Leon's Restaurant. The plaintiff sued the named defendant d/b/a and the defendant argued that the restaurant was owned by a corporation. The fact finder ruled for the defendant essentially finding that the named defendant neither ordered the subject seafood nor agreed to pay for any seafood. Indeed, he found that the plaintiff's manager testified that, without direction from anyone, she added the defendant's name to the invoices. The fact finder noted, however, that the named defendant did, on occasion, respond to inquiries from the plaintiff about outstanding bills and that subsequently monies were paid.

In Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. Mansour Builders, Inc., 20 Conn. App. 420,423, 567 A.2d 1250 (1989), our Appellate court stated that, "[a] reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of facts. This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court . . . or attorney trial referees. "(Internal citations omitted.) Id., 423. The court added that "attorney trial referees and fact finders share the same function. . . . (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The plaintiff is clearly asking this court to substitute the plaintiff's view of the facts for that of the fact finder. This court finds nothing erroneous with his conclusions and thus refuses to vacate that decision. See, Shaw v. L.A. Socci,24 Conn. App. 223, 229, 587 A.2d 429 (1991). The fact that the plaintiff made the invoices out to "LEONS REST ED/LEON/JOSEPH VARIPAPA" does not make the named defendant personally liable for the corporation's debts.

Berger, J. CT Page 3429

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-fish-market-inc-v-varipapa-no-cv01-0508994s-mar-18-2002-ct-connsuperct-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack