Kenny v. Town of Orange

Connecticut Appellate Court

Kenny v. Town of Orange

12 A.3d 1008, 126 Conn. App. 351, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 32

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 2011

DocketAC 31985

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.3d 1008 (Kenny v. Town of Orange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenny v. Town of Orange, 12 A.3d 1008, 126 Conn. App. 351, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 32 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*352 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Robert Kenny, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant, the town of Orange. The trial court declined, inter alia, to order the defendant to commence immediately payment of the plaintiffs deferred vested pension benefit. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that he was not entitled to the payment of his deferred vested pension benefit until March 1, 2019, his normal retirement date. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the court’s memorandum of decision resolves properly the issue raised in this appeal, we adopt the court’s comprehensive and well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Kenny v. Orange, 51 Conn. Sup. 506, 11 A.3d 744 (2010). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Socha v. Bordeau, 289 Conn. 358, 362, 956 A.2d 1174 (2008).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

*352 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Robert Kenny, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant, the town of Orange. The trial court declined, inter alia, to order the defendant to commence immediately payment of the plaintiffs deferred vested pension benefit. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that he was not entitled to the payment of his deferred vested pension benefit until March 1, 2019, his normal retirement date. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the court’s memorandum of decision resolves properly the issue raised in this appeal, we adopt the court’s comprehensive and well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Kenny v. Orange, 51 Conn. Sup. 506, 11 A.3d 744 (2010). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Socha v. Bordeau, 289 Conn. 358, 362, 956 A.2d 1174 (2008).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.3d 1008, 126 Conn. App. 351, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenny-v-town-of-orange-connappct-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack