Gottesman v. Kratter
Citations
- 211 Conn. App. 206
Syllabus
In two separate actions, the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant attorney, K, in the first action for, inter alia, legal malpractice and breach of contract, and from the defendant law firms K Co. and M Co. in the second action for, inter alia, legal malpractice and transferee liability, in connection with an underlying marital dissolution proceed- ing. In the first action, the trial court granted K's motion to strike the count of the complaint sounding in breach of contract and granted K's motion for summary judgment on, inter alia, the count sounding in legal malpractice. In the second action, the court granted K Co. and M Co.'s motions for summary judgment on, inter alia, the counts of the complaint sounding in legal malpractice and transferee liability. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of K, K Co. and M Co. as to the plaintiff's legal malpractice claims against them: the plaintiff, who did not dispute that an expert witness was required in order for her to prove her legal malpractice claims, failed to meet the deadline set place in the scheduling order in each action for the disclosure of an expert in support of her claims; moreover, even after the deadline had passed, the court never indicated that it would not consider the opinion of an expert submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendants' motions for summary judgment; furthermore, although the plaintiff filed motions for permission for late disclosure of an expert witness, the motions did not identify any expert or the substance of opinions to be provided and the plaintiff never disclosed an expert before the court rendered judgment. 2. The trial court properly granted K's motion to strike the count of the plaintiff's complaint sounding in breach of contract; the count alleged a claim for legal malpractice rather than for breach of contract, as it was not a claim that K breached the retainer agreement w
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding of unfitness supported by evidence that mother was unable to comprehend effect of abuse on children and participation in services had not appreciably improved her parenting capacity
- “[w]e do not sit as a trial court to review de novo the evidence presented by the parties”
- mother's participation in services \had not appreciably improved her capacity to 'meet the complex emotional and physical needs of her children'\
- \We do not sit as a trial court to review de novo the evidence presented by the parties\
- absent evidence that services have \appreciably improved\ capacity to meet needs of children, mere participation in services does not equate with fitness
- participation in services \had not appreciably improved [the mother's] capacity to 'meet the complex emotional and physical needs of her children'\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Elgo; Alexander; Harper
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.