DocketNumber: No. CV88 0093835 S
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2714
Judges: MOTTOLESE, J.
Filed Date: 3/27/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The scope of the court's duty in this regard is found in P.B. 439 which prevents the court from making any such corrections "unless a material fact has been found without evidence or the [referee] has failed to find an admitted or undisputed fact, or has found a fact in such doubtful language that its real meaning does not appear". It is only the first of these standards that applies in this case. The Court has reached this conclusion notwithstanding the failure of the defendant to specify which of these three errors he claims the referee made. In making this assessment the Court must determine whether the ultimate factual conclusions of the referee are supported by his factual findings and whether the facts found are reasonably supported by the evidence. Shaw v. Socci,
The Court has examined the transcript of the proceedings before the referee and concludes that there is ample support therein for each and every material finding made by the referee. The defendant attacks the testimony of Fiorenzio Corbo, the land surveyor, insofar as that witness purported to plot the wetlands line. It is no surprise that the referee accepted his testimony when the only countervailing testimony was from the defendant himself who was not a licensed land surveyor. The referee also had before him the testimony of Kenneth C. Stevens, Jr., a soil scientist who confirmed the correctness of this line.
The defendant next claims that no requirement for a 25 foot buffer existed and therefore any fill that was deposited within 25 feet of the wetland was done so lawfully. The simple answer to this is that the 25 foot buffer was made an express condition of the approval issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on August 20, 1986. The record is clear that the defendant acquiesced in this condition when he commenced work on the land in accordance with the approval issued.
II. THE OBJECTION
A. On January 17, 1991 the defendant objected to the reference of this case to the referee. The Court (Lewis, J.) overruled the objection on the grounds that the defendant was deemed to have consented to the reference by his failure to object at the calendar call. The objection was renewed before the referee and was likewise overruled.
When this case appeared and was called on the Assignment List of Court Cases, the defendant was represented by a different attorney, one Morris L. Glucksman. The notice that introduced the Calendar provides as follows: "cases assigned for trial will be heard by an attorney trial referee pursuant to P.B. 428 unless after consultation with their client an objection by counsel is CT Page 2716 made to the reference at the Calendar call pursuant to Seal Audio Inc. v. Bozak, Inc.,
B. The defendant next contends that his experts, Dominick Schefiliti, a professional engineer, and Robert T. Hamilton, a professional land surveyor were not permitted to testify because they were not disclosed as experts as required by P.B. 220(D). Not only did the defendants admit this at trial but the pleadings reveal that no formal disclosure of these experts was ever made. While the rule permits the court to waive the requirement in its discretion for good cause shown, no good cause was shown at trial justifying such action, Yale University School of Medicine v. McCarthy,
C. Finally, the defendant challenges the referee's order awarding the plaintiff attorney's fees, costs and expenses, arguing that
There is nothing in
A different question arises however with respect to the amount of attorney's fees awarded. The referee granted attorney's fees at an hourly rate of $125 which he found to be the reasonable value of CT Page 2717 the services. This determination was based upon his reading of Blum v. Stenson,
The referee applied the correct standard.
For the foregoing reason the report of the referee is accepted and judgment may enter thereon.
MOTTOLESE, JUDGE