![]() The plaintiff appeals from (1) the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants after it granted their motion for summary judgment with respect to all three counts of her complaint and (2) the denial of her subsequent motion to reargue and reconsider. Zingaro & Cretella, LLC (“The plaintiff, Kristen Kuselias, brought the civil action underlying this appeal, in which she raised claims of legal malpractice, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation against the defendants, the law firm of Zingaro & Cretella, LLC, and Attorney Eugene J. Legal Malpractice Law Appellate Court OpinionĪC45952 - Kuselias v. We do not reach the merits of the defendants’ claims because, during the pendency of this appeal and following the termination of the appellate stay, arbitration proceedings commenced as ordered by the trial court, and, accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.”) On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) committed plain error in granting the application to compel arbitration (a) following a remote status conference that was not transcribed or recorded by a court reporter or court recording monitor and (b) without providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the issues in connection with the application, (2) failed to review an agreement executed by the parties, pursuant to which the plaintiff sought to compel arbitration, before granting the application, and (3) improperly granted the application when the prerequisites to arbitration, as set forth in the parties’ agreement, had not been satisfied. Glasscock (“The defendants, Alex Glasscock and Susan Glasscock, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the application to compel arbitration filed by the plaintiff, Hine Builders, LLC. We disagree with both claims and affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)ĪC46298 - Hine Builders, LLC v. Would forget evidence, counsel’s arguments or the trial court’s instructions. Of the risk that jurors would be exposed to improper outside influences or Twenty-five day pause after the jury began deliberating prejudiced him because He also argues that the trial court abused itsĭiscretion in denying his motion for a mistrial, in which he contended that the Of General Statutes § 53a-103, even though the same facts and allegations ![]() ![]() Guilty of the lesser included offense of burglary in the third degree, in violation Verdict finding him guilty of home invasion, in violation of General Statutes §ĥ3a-100aa (a) (1), was legally inconsistent with its verdict finding him not More specifically, the defendant firstĪrgues that we should overrule or modify Arroyo because the jury’s Mistrial when he contracted COVID-19, which resulted in a twenty-five day (2) to hold that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to declare a ![]() 2d 1086 (2010), holding that consistency in verdicts is immaterialĪnd legally inconsistent verdicts are therefore not reviewable on appeal, and Henderson, asks us (1) to reexamine our decision in State v. Henderson (“In this direct appeal, the defendant, Lawrence Lee ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |