Gianetti v. Neigher
Citations
- 214 Conn. App. 394
Syllabus
The plaintiff physician sought to recover damages from the defendant attor- ney for his alleged legal malpractice in connection with his representa- tion of the plaintiff in a prior breach of contract action against a hospital. During the pendency of the breach of contract action, the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint to add a count asserting a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.). After the court found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him damages on his breach of contract claims, the defendant commenced a separate action against the hospital, alleging a violation of CUTPA. The trial court in that action rendered judgment for the hospital, concluding that the CUTPA claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations (§ 42-110g (f)). The plaintiff thereafter brought this legal malpractice action, claiming that the defendant had committed professional negligence by failing to timely bring the CUTPA claim and a claim of tortious interference with business expectancies against the hospital. Pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 13- 4), the plaintiff disclosed an attorney, S, as an expert witness who would testify at trial. The plaintiff did not disclose S's opinions at that time. After the trial court extended the trial date and discovery deadlines several times, the defendant filed motions to preclude S from testifying at trial and for summary judgment. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's expert witness disclosure was not in conformance with the requirements of Practice Book § 13-4 and that summary judgment was required because, in the absence of expert testimony, the plaintiff could not prevail on his legal malpractice claims. The court again continued the trial date and extended the plaintiff's deadline for the disclosure of expert witnesses. Two weeks after the court-ordered deadline for the disclosure of expert witnesses, the plaintiff again disclosed
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- prejudgment interest may run from date of arbitration award to date trial court rendered judgment
- prejudgment interest may run from date of arbitration award to date trial court rendered judgment
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bright; Prescott; Moll
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.