Farber v. New Haven Savings Bank, No. 404719 (Sep. 12, 2000)

Connecticut Superior Court

Farber v. New Haven Savings Bank, No. 404719 (Sep. 12, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11024

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided September 12, 2000·No. No. 404719·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

The motion for summary judgment of the defendant, New Haven Savings Bank is granted, based on the statute of frauds. General Statutes §52-550; see paragraph 4 of the bank's form sales contract; Alfred M. BestCo., Inc. v. Goldstein, 124 Conn. 597, 602, 1 A.2d 140 (1938); cf. R. F.Baker Co., Inc. v. P. Ballentine Sons, 127 Conn. 680, 682-83 (1941).

The motion for summary judgment of the defendant Mark I. Harrison and Harrison Research Drive Realty, L.L.C. is granted. Carta v. Marino,13 Conn. App. 677, 538 A.2d 1091 (1988). This is so as to the plaintiff's claim of interference with contractual relations, since no contract between the plaintiff and the bank existed. It also is so as to the plaintiff's claim of interference with a business expectancy. Even assuming that a business relationship existed between the plaintiff and the bank, the defendants Mark I. Harrison and Harrison Research Drive Realty, L.L.C., as a matter of law, did not commit a tortious act. See generally Daley v. Aetna Life Casualty Co., 249 Conn. 766, 806,734 A.2d 112 (1999), and cases cited therein.

A memorandum of decision will be issued later this month, and within twenty days. See Lauer v. Zoning Commission, 246 Conn. 251, 257 (1998).

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. Levin Judge of the Superior Court CT Page 11025

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

The motion for summary judgment of the defendant, New Haven Savings Bank is granted, based on the statute of frauds. General Statutes §52-550; see paragraph 4 of the bank's form sales contract; Alfred M. BestCo., Inc. v. Goldstein, 124 Conn. 597, 602, 1 A.2d 140 (1938); cf. R. F.Baker Co., Inc. v. P. Ballentine Sons, 127 Conn. 680, 682-83 (1941).

The motion for summary judgment of the defendant Mark I. Harrison and Harrison Research Drive Realty, L.L.C. is granted. Carta v. Marino,13 Conn. App. 677, 538 A.2d 1091 (1988). This is so as to the plaintiff's claim of interference with contractual relations, since no contract between the plaintiff and the bank existed. It also is so as to the plaintiff's claim of interference with a business expectancy. Even assuming that a business relationship existed between the plaintiff and the bank, the defendants Mark I. Harrison and Harrison Research Drive Realty, L.L.C., as a matter of law, did not commit a tortious act. See generally Daley v. Aetna Life Casualty Co., 249 Conn. 766, 806,734 A.2d 112 (1999), and cases cited therein.

A memorandum of decision will be issued later this month, and within twenty days. See Lauer v. Zoning Commission, 246 Conn. 251, 257 (1998).

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. Levin Judge of the Superior Court CT Page 11025

Farber v. New Haven Savings Bank, No. 404719 (Sep. 12, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11024 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11024 (Farber v. New Haven Savings Bank, No. 404719 (Sep. 12, 2000)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related