Green Gross P.C. v. Senie, No. Cv97 034 01 14 (Sep. 10, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Green Gross P.C. v. Senie, No. Cv97 034 01 14 (Sep. 10, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10752

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 10, 1998

DocketNo. CV97 034 01 14

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10752 (Green Gross P.C. v. Senie, No. Cv97 034 01 14 (Sep. 10, 1998)) 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

Green Gross P.C. v. Senie, No. Cv97 034 01 14 (Sep. 10, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10752 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT OF ATTORNEY TRIAL REFEREE (#125) 1. The defendants' first objection attacks the factual findings of the attorney trial referee (hereinafter "ATR"). It is noted that the claims in this regard are identical to those made in the defendants' Motion to Correct which the ATR denied. The only recognized method by which to attack findings of fact in an ATR report is to file "Exceptions To The Report or Finding" together with a transcript of the evidence. The defendants have done neither and so the court has no basis upon which to correct any finding of fact. P. B. § 19-13.

2. The defendants' attempt to distinguish Marsh, Day andCalhoun v. Solomon, 204 Conn. 639 (1987) is unavailing. First, there is nothing in the opinion of the Supreme Court which makes the attorney's lien dependent upon the attorney being "fired". Secondly, as stated above, no transcript has been provided pursuant to which the court could find that the plaintiff "was anxious to rid himself of the client". CT Page 10753

3. The defendants have failed to provide the court with any analysis as to how the ATR "failed to give sufficient effect" to certain reported decisions of our courts. The defendants have offered no discussion. They merely make a conclusory assertion.

4. The defendants have failed to state how the fact that they were represented by counsel militated against their knowing, voluntary act of signing the note. Representation by counsel has always been a factor which a court is entitled to consider in assessing whether an act was done under duress.

The court finds no reason why the report should not be accepted. Judgment may enter for the plaintiff in accordance with the report as follows: Practice Book § 19-17

Principal $4,500.00

Interest to 8/31/98 $ 832.71

Total $5,332.71

Attorney's fees $1,300.00.

THE COURT,

MOTTOLESE, JUDGE

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.]

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT OF ATTORNEY TRIAL REFEREE (#125) 1. The defendants' first objection attacks the factual findings of the attorney trial referee (hereinafter "ATR"). It is noted that the claims in this regard are identical to those made in the defendants' Motion to Correct which the ATR denied. The only recognized method by which to attack findings of fact in an ATR report is to file "Exceptions To The Report or Finding" together with a transcript of the evidence. The defendants have done neither and so the court has no basis upon which to correct any finding of fact. P. B. § 19-13.

2. The defendants' attempt to distinguish Marsh, Day andCalhoun v. Solomon, 204 Conn. 639 (1987) is unavailing. First, there is nothing in the opinion of the Supreme Court which makes the attorney's lien dependent upon the attorney being "fired". Secondly, as stated above, no transcript has been provided pursuant to which the court could find that the plaintiff "was anxious to rid himself of the client". CT Page 10753

3. The defendants have failed to provide the court with any analysis as to how the ATR "failed to give sufficient effect" to certain reported decisions of our courts. The defendants have offered no discussion. They merely make a conclusory assertion.

4. The defendants have failed to state how the fact that they were represented by counsel militated against their knowing, voluntary act of signing the note. Representation by counsel has always been a factor which a court is entitled to consider in assessing whether an act was done under duress.

The court finds no reason why the report should not be accepted. Judgment may enter for the plaintiff in accordance with the report as follows: Practice Book § 19-17

Principal $4,500.00

Interest to 8/31/98 $ 832.71

Total $5,332.71

Attorney's fees $1,300.00.

THE COURT,

MOTTOLESE, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-gross-pc-v-senie-no-cv97-034-01-14-sep-10-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack