Love v. Towers, No. Cv89 0103634 S (Feb. 14, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Love v. Towers, No. Cv89 0103634 S (Feb. 14, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1380

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 14, 1991

DocketNo. CV89 0103634 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1380 (Love v. Towers, No. Cv89 0103634 S (Feb. 14, 1991)) 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

Love v. Towers, No. Cv89 0103634 S (Feb. 14, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1380 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION For the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 7-13 of the "Defendant's Motion to Strike Objection to Acceptance of Report", judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $4,666.00 as set forth in the Finding of Fact prepared by Attorney Trial Referee Saul Kwartin on December 13, 1990 should enter.

There has been no finding of fact by the Referee that the ninety (90) days written notice of termination requirement applied to termination for cause, nor has there been a motion to correct or add additional facts to those found by the Referee.

This court is not free to make any findings as to the application of the notice provision which is the basis upon which the plaintiff seeks an additional $6,000 in damages. Kowalsky Properties Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 7 Conn. App. 136,140 (1986). Therefore, judgment shall enter for the plaintiff for $4,666.00.

KATZ, JUDGE CT Page 1381

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 For the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 7-13 of the "Defendant's Motion to Strike Objection to Acceptance of Report", judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $4,666.00 as set forth in the Finding of Fact prepared by Attorney Trial Referee Saul Kwartin on December 13, 1990 should enter.

There has been no finding of fact by the Referee that the ninety (90) days written notice of termination requirement applied to termination for cause, nor has there been a motion to correct or add additional facts to those found by the Referee.

This court is not free to make any findings as to the application of the notice provision which is the basis upon which the plaintiff seeks an additional $6,000 in damages. Kowalsky Properties Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 7 Conn. App. 136,140 (1986). Therefore, judgment shall enter for the plaintiff for $4,666.00.

KATZ, JUDGE CT Page 1381

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/love-v-towers-no-cv89-0103634-s-feb-14-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack