Michalczyk v. Connecticut Education A., No. Cv 92 0512234s (Jun. 21, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Michalczyk v. Connecticut Education A., No. Cv 92 0512234s (Jun. 21, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6172

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 21, 1995

DocketNo. CV 92 0512234S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6172 (Michalczyk v. Connecticut Education A., No. Cv 92 0512234s (Jun. 21, 1995)) 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

Michalczyk v. Connecticut Education A., No. Cv 92 0512234s (Jun. 21, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6172 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT By way of a third revised complaint, plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their contract with the plaintiff by giving faulty legal representation. The defendants have moved for summary judgment claiming that suit was not instituted during the three-year tort statute of limitations. General Statutes §52-577. Plaintiff has objected to the motion for summary judgment, claiming that this is a suit on a contract and that the six-year statute applies. General Statutes § 52-576. While this appears to be a legal malpractice case sounding in tort, Connecticut has recognized legal malpractice actions based upon a breach of contract theory. Mac's Car City, Inc. v. DeNigris,18 Conn. App. 525, 529-530 (1989); Stowe v. Smith, 184 Conn. 194,198-199; Robbins v. McGuinness, 178 Conn. 258, 261-62. The plaintiff's complaint states a claim in contract.

The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Allen, State Trial Referee CT Page 6173

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT By way of a third revised complaint, plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their contract with the plaintiff by giving faulty legal representation. The defendants have moved for summary judgment claiming that suit was not instituted during the three-year tort statute of limitations. General Statutes §52-577. Plaintiff has objected to the motion for summary judgment, claiming that this is a suit on a contract and that the six-year statute applies. General Statutes § 52-576. While this appears to be a legal malpractice case sounding in tort, Connecticut has recognized legal malpractice actions based upon a breach of contract theory. Mac's Car City, Inc. v. DeNigris,18 Conn. App. 525, 529-530 (1989); Stowe v. Smith, 184 Conn. 194,198-199; Robbins v. McGuinness, 178 Conn. 258, 261-62. The plaintiff's complaint states a claim in contract.

The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Allen, State Trial Referee CT Page 6173

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michalczyk-v-connecticut-education-a-no-cv-92-0512234s-jun-21-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack