Source: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Archive_ap_assign/13-14/ap_assign1.htm
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 22:19:51
Document Index: 665554113

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 51', '§ 49', '§ 61', '§ 10', '§ 52', '§ 52', '§ 52', '§ 63', '§ 85', '§ 52', '§ 10', '§ 51', '§ 85', '§ 85', '§ 51', '§ 85']

TRAVELER’S PROPERTY CASUALTY
Leonard C. Boyle, Deputy Chief State’s Attorney
Rocco A. Chiarenza, Assistant State’s Attorney
Jennifer Dalenta Miller, Special Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney
DU’GLACE, LLC, ET AL.
KEEPER’S INC.
Melissa E. Patterson, Assistant State’s Attorney
Robin S. Schwartz, Special Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney
O’Connell Attmore & Morris, LLC
Law Office of James G. O’Rourke
Kenny, O’Keefe & Usseglio, P.C.
Lisa Herskowitz, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
DOCTOR’S ASSOCIATES, INC.
For Doctor’s Associates, Inc.: Melissa Amy Durso
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE DENIAL OF THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE TRIAL COURT DECLINE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER WAS NOT AN APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT. SEE SASSO V. ALESHIN, 197 CONN. 87, 90 (1985); STATE V. CURCIO, 191 CONN. 27, 31 (1983).
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED (1) BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED; SEE YOUNG V. YOUNG, 249 CONN. 482, 488-96 (1999); AND (2) BECAUSE THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY. SEE GENERAL STATUTES § 51-88; EXPRESSWAY ASSOCIATES II V. FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORP. OF CONNECTICUT, 34 CONN. APP. 543, 546, CERT. DENIED, 230 CONN. 915 (1994).
(2)	AC35486
Pasquale Silano, Self-represented party
Tina Silano, Self-represented party
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, (1) WHY THE CROSS APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT BECAUSE TITLE VESTED IN THE PLAINTIFF BY THE PASSING OF THE LAW DAYS; SEE GENERAL STATUTES § 49-15; OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, FSB V. CHARLES, 95 CONN. APP. 315, 321-22, CERT. DENIED, 279 CONN. 909 (2006); AND (2) WHY THE CROSS APPEAL, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CHALLENGES THE RULING DENYING DEFENDANT PASQUALE SILANO’S MOTION FOR STAY UNTIL HIS APPEAL IN AC 35176 WAS RESOLVED, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS (A) MOOT AS THIS COURT CAN NO LONGER PROVIDE ANY PRACTICAL RELIEF SINCE AC 35176 HAS BEEN RESOLVED, AND (B) IMPROPER TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CHALLENGES A DECISION ON A MOTION FOR STAY. SEE PRACTICE BOOK § 61-14; SANTORO V. SANTORO, 33 CONN. APP. 839, 841-42 (1994).
Francine Silano, Self-represented party
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THIS APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT HAS RULED ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF LIABILITY AND HAS NOT YET DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES. SEE STROINEY V. CRESCENT LAKE TAX DISTRICT, 197 CONN. 82, 84 (1985); PINNIX V. LAMORTE, 182 CONN. 342, 343-44 (1980).
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT BECAUSE JUDGMENT HAD NOT BEEN RENDERED ON THE STRICKEN COMPLAINT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FILED. SEE PRACTICE BOOK §§ 10-44 AND 61-2; NORWICH V. SILVERBERG, 200 CONN. 367, 369 N.3 (1986); HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC. V. STARBALA, 85 CONN. APP. 284, 285 N.1 (2004).
(5)	AC35738
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL STATUES § 52-299 MOTION SEEKING SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS TO EFFECTUATE A § 52-278f ATTACHMENT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF GENERAL STATUTES § 52-278l AND THEREFORE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT. SEE AMBROISE V. WILLIAM RAVEIS REAL ESTATE, INC., 226 CONN. 757, 762 (1993); WINTONBURY GROUP V. ROANTREE, 39 CONN. APP. 149, 153-54 (1995).
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE DEFENDANT’S APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S MAY 20, 2013 ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A PREJUDGMENT REMEDY SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT, BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT VACATED THAT ORDER ON JUNE 28, 2013 AND/OR WHETHER THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF DILIGENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO FILE THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY PRACTICE BOOK § 63-4. SEE THORN AMERICAS, INC. V. TORRES, 34 CONN. APP. 303, 305-306 (1994) AND PRACTICE BOOK § 85-1.
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL BY RICHARD P. WEINSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION BECAUSE RICHARD P. WEINSTEIN WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE UNDERLYING DISSOLUTION ACTION AND, THEREFORE, HAD NO RIGHT TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO GENERAL STATUTES § 52-263. SEE STATE V. SALMON, 250 CONN. 147 (1999).
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL FROM THE APRIL 8, 2013 RULING STRIKING THE COUNTERCLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT VERNON A. STANCUNA SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT AS THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT YET RENDERED JUDGMENT ON THE STRICKEN COUNTERCLAIM. SEE PRACTICE BOOK §§ 10-44 AND 61-2; NORWICH V. SILVERBERG, 200 CONN. 367, 369 N.3 (1986); HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC. V. STARBALA, 85 CONN. APP. 284, 285 N. 1 (2004).
(9)	AC35636
United States’ Attorney
IN FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS TO ERLING C. CHRISTOPHERSEN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE ERLING C. CHRISTOPHERSEN REVOCABLE TRUST, BECAUSE THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY. SEE GENERAL STATUTES § 51-88; GORELICK V. MONTANARO, 119 CONN. APP. 785, 793 (2010); EXPRESSWAY ASSOCIATES II V. FRIENDLY ICE CREAM CORP. OF CONNECTICUT, 34 CONN. APP. 543, 546, CERT. DENIED, 230 CONN. 915 (1994).
IN THE FOLLOWING MATTERS, COUNSEL, SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES AND NON-APPEARING PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED, PRACTICE BOOK § 85-1, AND WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED, PRACTICE BOOK § 85-2, FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE DOCUMENTS LISTED OR TO PURSUE THE APPEAL WITH DILIGENCE. FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THIS HEARING AS ORDERED MAY SUBJECT COUNSEL, SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES AND NON-APPEARING PARTIES TO THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MONETARY SANCTIONS, FINES, AND/OR PROHIBITION FROM APPEARING BEFORE THIS COURT. SEE GENERAL STATUTES § 51-84 AND PRACTICE BOOK §§ 85-1, 85-2.
Defendant-appellant’s appearance and brief due on or before April 22, 2013.
Defendant-appellant’s appearance and brief due on or before June 3, 2013.
Petitioner-appellant’s appearance and brief due on or before May 29, 2013.
Petitioner-appellant’s appearance and brief due on or before June 6, 2013.
Defendant-appellant’s appearance and brief due on or before August 9, 2013.
Lawrence J. Tytla, Supervisory State’s Attorney
Melissa L. Streeto, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
Susan C. Marks, Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney