Dudrow v. Ernst Young, LLP, No. X01-Cv-98-0144211 S (Sep. 17, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Dudrow v. Ernst Young, LLP, No. X01-Cv-98-0144211 S (Sep. 17, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12916

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 17, 1999

DocketNo. X01-CV-98-0144211 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12916 (Dudrow v. Ernst Young, LLP, No. X01-Cv-98-0144211 S (Sep. 17, 1999)) 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

Dudrow v. Ernst Young, LLP, No. X01-Cv-98-0144211 S (Sep. 17, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 12916 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON LEVY DRONEY AND VITALE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #6 Defendants Levy Droney, P.C. and Joseph A. Vitale have moved for summary judgment on the vanguard plaintiffs' claim for statutory damages pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17b-529(a) in connection with these plaintiffs' claims against the movants. The claim for such damages is set forth at Counts 15-24 of the Amended Revised Complaint and in the ad damnum section in which the plaintiffs list the relief sought.

This court ruled in the Memorandum on Motions to Strike dated November 4, 1998 that the damages provided in the Continuing Care Act are applicable only to claims arising under that act against entities defined therein as "providers." This court ruled that CT Page 12917 legal counsel for a "provider" do not fit that description, and that statutory damages are not available against them.

The vanguard plaintiffs filed a brief in response to Motion for Summary Judgment #6 stating that "in light of the Court's rulings, this Motion is moot and therefore plaintiffs have filed no response." These plaintiffs have not taken the position that a different construction applies to claims against defendant Vitale as an officer and trustee of East Hill Woods.

These claims having been previously stricken, the motion for summary judgment is moot, as the claims are no longer in the case.

Beverly J. Hodgson Judge of the Superior Court

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