Keavy v. Katz, No. Cv 87 0091131 S (Oct. 18, 1990)

Connecticut Superior Court

Keavy v. Katz, No. Cv 87 0091131 S (Oct. 18, 1990)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 2461

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1990

DocketNo. CV 87 0091131 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 2461 (Keavy v. Katz, No. Cv 87 0091131 S (Oct. 18, 1990)) 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

Keavy v. Katz, No. Cv 87 0091131 S (Oct. 18, 1990), 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 2461 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This breach of contract case was referred to an attorney trial referee; General Statutes S 52-434(a)(4), Practice Book S 428 et seq.; who filed her report with this court on July 26, 1990. The defendant's motion to correct was not filed until August 22, 1990. In DeFonce Construction Corp. v. Leslie Eliot Co., 21 Conn. App. 545, 547,574 A.2d 1321 (1990), the court denied a motion to correct that was filed "five days beyond the allotted deadline". Practice Book S 438.

The motion in this case was filed approximately thirteen days after the two-week time limit and hence is untimely.

Judgment therefore should enter for the plaintiff in accordance with the attorney trial referee's report, because the defendant is deemed to have waived his right to attack the referee's subordinate factual findings. Faulkner v. Marineland, Inc. 18 Conn. App. 1, 3, 555 A.2d 1001 (1989).

Our task is limited to deciding "whether the subordinate facts were sufficient to support the ultimate factual conclusions." Ruhl v. Fairfield, 5 Conn. App. 104,106, 496 A.2d 994 (1985). I believe this to be the case, as the referee found as a fact that the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with a computer that met plaintiff's specific needs, and she therefore concluded that the CT Page 2462 plaintiff had sustained damages in the amount of the purchase price, plus interest and costs, and subject to returning the computer to the defendant.

Judgment is therefore entered for the plaintiff as recommended by the attorney trial referee.

So Ordered.

Dated at Stamford, Connecticut this 18th day of October, 1990.

WILLIAM B. LEWIS, 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.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This breach of contract case was referred to an attorney trial referee; General Statutes S 52-434(a)(4), Practice Book S 428 et seq.; who filed her report with this court on July 26, 1990. The defendant's motion to correct was not filed until August 22, 1990. In DeFonce Construction Corp. v. Leslie Eliot Co., 21 Conn. App. 545, 547,574 A.2d 1321 (1990), the court denied a motion to correct that was filed "five days beyond the allotted deadline". Practice Book S 438.

The motion in this case was filed approximately thirteen days after the two-week time limit and hence is untimely.

Judgment therefore should enter for the plaintiff in accordance with the attorney trial referee's report, because the defendant is deemed to have waived his right to attack the referee's subordinate factual findings. Faulkner v. Marineland, Inc. 18 Conn. App. 1, 3, 555 A.2d 1001 (1989).

Our task is limited to deciding "whether the subordinate facts were sufficient to support the ultimate factual conclusions." Ruhl v. Fairfield, 5 Conn. App. 104,106, 496 A.2d 994 (1985). I believe this to be the case, as the referee found as a fact that the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with a computer that met plaintiff's specific needs, and she therefore concluded that the CT Page 2462 plaintiff had sustained damages in the amount of the purchase price, plus interest and costs, and subject to returning the computer to the defendant.

Judgment is therefore entered for the plaintiff as recommended by the attorney trial referee.

So Ordered.

Dated at Stamford, Connecticut this 18th day of October, 1990.

WILLIAM B. LEWIS, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 2461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keavy-v-katz-no-cv-87-0091131-s-oct-18-1990-connsuperct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack