DocketNumber: No. 095085
Judges: GAFFNEY, J. CT Page 6469
Filed Date: 7/22/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Briefly, the damages claimed by the defendants are profits lost as a result of an unconsummated sale of real estate. It is claimed that the closing of title did not occur because of the lawsuit brought by the plaintiff and, in connection therewith, a prejudgment remedy of attachment of the real estate. This, it is claimed, caused the prospective purchaser-developer, Keith Mahler, to have second thoughts and to back out of his agreement to buy.
Apart from the fact that Mr. Mahler's deposition testimony is unsupportive, if not in contradiction of the defendants' claims, the defendants have not filed an objection to the plaintiff's motion, or any counter affidavits or documentation of any kind. Practice Book, 380. Moreover, despite a counterclaim sounding in four distinct causes of action (negligence, unfair trade practice, abuse of process, and interference with a contractual relationship), the defendants have chosen to file no memorandum of law addressing any of the issues raised. Practice Book, 204.1 Plaintiff's counsel has implied at the time of oral argument that the strategy of the defendants is to stall for time.2
The defendants' egregious inattention to the case justifies immediate and favorable action on the motion, notwithstanding any material issues of fact which may exist. Cawley v. Schochat,
The defendants are ordered within fifteen (15) days of the date hereof to file a responsive memorandum of law addressing the issues raised by the plaintiff's motion, particularly that which relates to Mr. Mahler's deposition testimony. Upon non-compliance with this order, the motion for summary judgment is granted CT Page 6470 forthwith.
So ordered.
GAFFNEY, J.