Leeb-Lundberg v. McNamara and Kenney, No. Cv92 0125302 S (Jan. 18, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 551
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided January 18, 1994·No. No. CV92 0125302 S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The motions are denied because the dismissal of Perrine v. Ackerly as to Randolph King was a favorable termination for the plaintiff in this action. The interests of the estate of CT Page 552 Theodore Perrine were characterized in the Fifth Count of the underlying action as "beneficial interests". Thus, they were distinct from the interests of Susan King. Randolph King's failure to obtain ancillary administration in Connecticut constituted a continuance of the action and the failure to appeal the dismissal constituted an abandonment of the action within ambit of DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (1991) and Colli v. Kamins, 39 Conn. Sup. 75 (1983[)].

MOTTOLESE, J.

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

Leeb-Lundberg v. McNamara and Kenney, No. Cv92 0125302 S (Jan. 18, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 551 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 551 (Leeb-Lundberg v. McNamara and Kenney, No. Cv92 0125302 S (Jan. 18, 1994)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Colli v. Kamins
468 A.2d 295 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1983)
DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven
597 A.2d 807 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1991)