DocketNumber: No. CV91 0117568 S
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2580
Judges: RUSH, J.
Filed Date: 3/16/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The notes were given with respect to a purchase of property in the State of New York and the closing took place in Connecticut where payment was to be made. However, the affidavits filed by the parties indicate the existence of factual questions broader than the question relating to the place of the closing and the place of payment. For example, the affidavit on the file by the defendant Grean states; "The only contact the transaction giving rise to this litigation has with the State of Connecticut is that the offices of the Seller's attorney were located in Connecticut". The affidavit of the defendant Cassin states that "Although the closing for the transaction which gave rise to the promissory note at issue in this matter did take place in Greenwich, Connecticut, this was done at the request of the original payees under the note, as the transaction closed at the office of their Connecticut attorneys". However, the affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff John Decsepel states that "Almost all major negotiations and business dealings . . . were in Connecticut".
Accordingly, on the basis of the documents presently before the Court, the Court is not in the position to determine whether the conduct of the defendants constitutes the transaction of j business within the meaning of General Statutes,
RUSH, JUDGE CT Page 2581