Stamford Municipal Employees v. Potts, No. Cv97 034 05 86s (Nov. 4, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Stamford Municipal Employees v. Potts, No. Cv97 034 05 86s (Nov. 4, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15594-I

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 4, 1999

DocketNo. CV97 034 05 86S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15594-I (Stamford Municipal Employees v. Potts, No. Cv97 034 05 86s (Nov. 4, 1999)) 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

Stamford Municipal Employees v. Potts, No. Cv97 034 05 86s (Nov. 4, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15594-I (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of its motion limits the scope of the motion to the defendant's counterclaim which seeks to establish an agency relationship between the plaintiff as agent and the City of Stamford as principal. Stamford is a municipal corporation and the employer of defendant, Nathan E. Potts, Jr.

While the plaintiff's affidavit executed by its President, Raymond F. Dowling is largely conclusory in nature it does, establish that the plaintiff is a federal credit union. A federal credit union is an entity separate and distinct from the municipality whose employees it serves. See C.G.S § 36a-435 et. seq. The affidavit contains allegations which deny any agency relationship with the city and which assert the independence of the credit union. The defendant's affidavit asserts none of the elements of agency. 3 Am.Jur. 2nd Ag. § 1.

The motion is granted as to the counterclaim only.

THE COURT,

Mottolese, Judge

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of its motion limits the scope of the motion to the defendant's counterclaim which seeks to establish an agency relationship between the plaintiff as agent and the City of Stamford as principal. Stamford is a municipal corporation and the employer of defendant, Nathan E. Potts, Jr.

While the plaintiff's affidavit executed by its President, Raymond F. Dowling is largely conclusory in nature it does, establish that the plaintiff is a federal credit union. A federal credit union is an entity separate and distinct from the municipality whose employees it serves. See C.G.S § 36a-435 et. seq. The affidavit contains allegations which deny any agency relationship with the city and which assert the independence of the credit union. The defendant's affidavit asserts none of the elements of agency. 3 Am.Jur. 2nd Ag. § 1.

The motion is granted as to the counterclaim only.

THE COURT,

Mottolese, Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15594-I, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stamford-municipal-employees-v-potts-no-cv97-034-05-86s-nov-4-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack