Sunshine Enterprises v. Deluxe Shirt Laundry, No. Cv 29 31 41 (Nov. 6, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Sunshine Enterprises v. Deluxe Shirt Laundry, No. Cv 29 31 41 (Nov. 6, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 13187

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 6, 1998

DocketNo. CV 29 31 41

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 13187 (Sunshine Enterprises v. Deluxe Shirt Laundry, No. Cv 29 31 41 (Nov. 6, 1998)) 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

Sunshine Enterprises v. Deluxe Shirt Laundry, No. Cv 29 31 41 (Nov. 6, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 13187 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION OBJECTIONS TO ATR'S REPORT: EXCEPTIONS TO ATR'S REPORT AND ARTICULATION This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's objections and exceptions to an ATR's report and articulation. In a supplemental memorandum of law in support of the plaintiff's exceptions and objection, the plaintiff argues that the ATR's report cannot be accepted by the court. The ATR's report was filed on April 29, 1994, more than 120 days after trial was completed. Under Ficara v. O'Connor, 45 Conn. App. 626,697 A.2d 696 (1997) and Gumpert v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 39 Conn. App. 635,666 A.2d 437 (1995), the 120 date is mandatory and cannot be waived by the parties.

Accordingly, the ATR's report is not properly before the court. Pursuant to Practice Book § 443, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 19-17, the matter is referred to the same ATR for a new trial which may, in the referee's discretion, include all of the proceedings to date. See Schiappa v. Ferrero, Superior Court judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 318194 (February 13, 1998, Mottolese, J.).

BY THE COURT

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION OBJECTIONS TO ATR'S REPORT: EXCEPTIONS TO ATR'S REPORT AND ARTICULATION This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's objections and exceptions to an ATR's report and articulation. In a supplemental memorandum of law in support of the plaintiff's exceptions and objection, the plaintiff argues that the ATR's report cannot be accepted by the court. The ATR's report was filed on April 29, 1994, more than 120 days after trial was completed. Under Ficara v. O'Connor, 45 Conn. App. 626,697 A.2d 696 (1997) and Gumpert v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 39 Conn. App. 635,666 A.2d 437 (1995), the 120 date is mandatory and cannot be waived by the parties.

Accordingly, the ATR's report is not properly before the court. Pursuant to Practice Book § 443, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 19-17, the matter is referred to the same ATR for a new trial which may, in the referee's discretion, include all of the proceedings to date. See Schiappa v. Ferrero, Superior Court judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 318194 (February 13, 1998, Mottolese, J.).

BY THE COURT

MELVILLE, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 13187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunshine-enterprises-v-deluxe-shirt-laundry-no-cv-29-31-41-nov-6-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack