Peterson v. Sabini, No. 327596 (Dec. 10, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Peterson v. Sabini, No. 327596 (Dec. 10, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7214

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 10, 1996

DocketNo. 327596

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7214 (Peterson v. Sabini, No. 327596 (Dec. 10, 1996)) 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

Peterson v. Sabini, No. 327596 (Dec. 10, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7214 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The complaint alleges that one or more of the defendants Sabini contracted with G P Air Conditioning Company (G P) to perform repairs to the heating and ventilation system of a building owned by Sabini Realty Company. While working on the roof for G P, the plaintiff fell through a skylight on which he was leaning while reaching for some tools. Since his only recourse against his employer was under the Worker's Compensation Act; General Statutes § 31-284(a);¹ he brought this civil action against the defendants Sabini and Sabini Realty Company. G P intervened to recover the worker's compensation payments made to the plaintiff. The defendants, armed with Ferryman v. Groton,212 Conn. 138 (1989), counterclaimed against G P seeking indemnification.

In view of the broad allegations of the counterclaim including the allegation that the "intervening plaintiffs were in complete possession and control of their work site at the premises where plaintiff's injury allegedly occurred", the court, bound by the settled standard by which to construe such allegations on a motion to strike, must deny the motion based onFerryman v. Groton, supra.² The defendants' claims must await summary judgment procedure when the court, with the benefit of "such documents as may be appropriate, including but not limited to affidavits, certified transcripts of testimony under oath, disclosures, written admissions and the like"; Practice Book § 380; may recognize the reality of the case. See S.E.C. v.Research Automation Corp., 585 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 1978);DiMauro v. Pavia, 492 F. Sup. 1051, 1059 (D.Conn. 1979) (Newman,J.), affirmed, 614 F.2d 1286 (2d Cir. 1979); see also DeMonte v.Rutkowski, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, No. 538055 (1996 Ct. Sup. 565, 16 Conn.L.Rptr. 70) (Jan. 25, 1996) (final paragraph).³ CT Page 7215

The motion to strike is denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

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 The complaint alleges that one or more of the defendants Sabini contracted with G P Air Conditioning Company (G P) to perform repairs to the heating and ventilation system of a building owned by Sabini Realty Company. While working on the roof for G P, the plaintiff fell through a skylight on which he was leaning while reaching for some tools. Since his only recourse against his employer was under the Worker's Compensation Act; General Statutes § 31-284(a);¹ he brought this civil action against the defendants Sabini and Sabini Realty Company. G P intervened to recover the worker's compensation payments made to the plaintiff. The defendants, armed with Ferryman v. Groton,212 Conn. 138 (1989), counterclaimed against G P seeking indemnification.

In view of the broad allegations of the counterclaim including the allegation that the "intervening plaintiffs were in complete possession and control of their work site at the premises where plaintiff's injury allegedly occurred", the court, bound by the settled standard by which to construe such allegations on a motion to strike, must deny the motion based onFerryman v. Groton, supra.² The defendants' claims must await summary judgment procedure when the court, with the benefit of "such documents as may be appropriate, including but not limited to affidavits, certified transcripts of testimony under oath, disclosures, written admissions and the like"; Practice Book § 380; may recognize the reality of the case. See S.E.C. v.Research Automation Corp., 585 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 1978);DiMauro v. Pavia, 492 F. Sup. 1051, 1059 (D.Conn. 1979) (Newman,J.), affirmed, 614 F.2d 1286 (2d Cir. 1979); see also DeMonte v.Rutkowski, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, No. 538055 (1996 Ct. Sup. 565, 16 Conn.L.Rptr. 70) (Jan. 25, 1996) (final paragraph).³ CT Page 7215

The motion to strike is denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-sabini-no-327596-dec-10-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack