Gary J. Greene of Greene Law, counsel for the plaintiff, said, “This is a seismic change. … The court has always taken the position that it’s the litigant’s duty to provide the court with the correct information so they can make a decision. The dissent points that out. Counsel didn't file a motion for articulation, which could have easily been done.”
April 19, 2024 at 04:02 PM
4 minute read
Litigation Reporter
In a divided Connecticut Supreme Court decision, two dissenters argued that the high court drifted outside of the discretion usually granted to the trial court, which could cause a “seismic change” when dealing with ambiguous judgments, the plaintiff’s counsel said.
The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the motion of defendants Aniello Dizenzo and his company, 1166 Stratford Avenue LLC, to open the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Mercedes-Benz Financial.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The New England Legal Awards serves as a testament to the outstanding contributions and achievements made by legal professionals.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
Epstein Becker & Green is seeking an associate to joins its Commercial Litigation practice in our Columbus or Cincinnati offices. Ca...
McCarter & English, LLP, a well established and growing law firm, is actively seeking a talented and driven associate having 2-5 years o...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
Connecticut Supreme Court building. Photo: Wikicommons
