DOCKET NO. HHD CV-16-606691 3 S
`
`VILLAGE MORTGAGE COMPANY
`
`VS.
`
`RONALD GARBUS, ET AL
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`J. D. OF HARTFORD
`
`AT HARTFORD
`
`FEBRUARY 28, 2019
`
`RULTNG ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REARGUE
`
`The court has considered the defendants’ motion to reargue (#151) and the plaintiff’s
`
`opposition (#152). The motion to reargue concerns the court’s memorandum of decision, dated
`
`January 29, 2019 (#149) (decision).
`
`_ The Supreme Court, in Hudson Valley Bank v. Kissel, 303 Conn. 614, 624, 35 A.3d 260
`
`(2012), reiterated the standards which govern reargument or reconsideration: “[T]he purpose of
`
`a reargument is .
`
`.
`
`. to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of
`
`law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has
`
`been a misapprehension of facts. .
`
`.
`
`. It also may be used to address .
`
`.
`
`. claims of law that the
`
`[movant] claimed were not addressed by the court. .
`
`.
`
`. [A] motion to reargue [however] is not t
`
`be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple. .
`
`. .” (Internal quotation marks
`
`omitted.)
`
`“[A] motion to reargue cannot be usedto correct the deficiencies in a prior motion .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`”
`
`Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn. App. 686, 692, 778 A.2d 981 (2001). “[A]s a general matter, in the
`
`absence of the discovery of some new facts or new legal authorities that could nothave been
`
`presented earlier, the denial of a motion for reargument is not an abuse of the discietion ofthe
`trial court.” (Emphasis omitted; internal?quotatidfl'fiim§dfla¥3‘aé Weinstein v. Weinstez'n, 275
`Conn. 671, 705, 882 A.2d 53 (2005).
`313310 5M :30 39‘”
`
`0
`
`.
`
`

`

`The defendants argue that the court shifted the burden of proof to the defendants to
`
`disprove judicially admitted facts, citing the following part of the decision, at page; 7: “Although
`
`the plaintiffs allegation in the complaint, paragraph 3, that the stock certificate was apparently
`
`returned to the defendants in June 2011 amounts to an admission, see Ferreira v. Pringle, 255
`
`Conn. 330, 345, 766 A.2d 400 (2001) (‘Factual allegations contained in pleadings upon which
`
`the case is tried are considered judicial admissions and hence irrefutable as long as they remain
`
`in the case.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)), there is no credible evidence before the court
`
`showing that the defendants currently possess the subject stock certificate.” No other factual
`
`determination by the court is challenged in the motion to reargue.
`
`While logical deductions may be made and reasonable inferences may be drawn from
`
`proven facts, a factfinder “may not resort to mere conjecture and speculation .
`
`.
`
`. .” (Internal
`
`quotation marks omitted.) Motzer v. Haberli, 300 Conn. 733, 743, 15 A.3d 1084 (2011).
`
`Without resort to mere speculation, the evidence cannot support the attenuated inference that th
`
`defendants had possession of the stock certificate at the time of trial, October 2018, more than
`
`seven years later. No burden shifting occurred.
`
`In addition, the court concluded that the defendants are not lawfi11 shareholders in
`
`Village Mortgage Company. The motion to reargue cites no authority and presents no analysis
`
`to challenge this conclusion. See Packard v. Packard, 181 Conn. App. 404, 406, 186 A.3d 795
`
`(2018) (“analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, required to avoid abandoning issue by
`
`failing to brief issue properly; where claim receives only cursory attention without: substantive
`
`discussion or citation of authorities, it is deemed abandoned”).
`
`

`

`Citing Caminis v. Troy, 112 Conn. App. 546, 557, 963 A.2d 701 (2009), aff’d on other
`
`grounds, 300 Conn. 297, 12 A.3d 984 (2011), the defendants also argue that the court’s decision
`implied that the return ofthe stock certificate to the defndants in 2011 was related to a
`
`fraudulent scheme of embezzlement by James Veneziano, perhaps in concert with the
`
`defendants, and, since the plaintiff’s claim sounds in law, not in equity, the court should have
`
`applied General Statutes § 52-577 to bar it. They argue that the court’s ruling is not akin to that
`
`of an injunction since it “is not coercive in nature - it merely declared that the defendants are no
`
`legitimate owners of the stock in question.” See motion, p. 3.
`
`In their post-trial brief (#147), pages 14-15, the defendants previously argued that the
`
`plaintiff 5 action is barred by General Statutes § 52-577. Their argument in the motion to
`
`reargue represents an attempt at a “second bite of the apple.”
`
`The court addressed this issue in its decision, at pages 9-10, and cited Camim's v. Troy,
`
`supra, 112 Conn. App. 559-60. As the court explained in the decision, page 10, the court looked
`
`to the ultimate remedy sought by the plaintiff: “[T]he relief sought in the plaintiffs complaint is
`
`also akin to that of an injunction, in that it seeks to prevent the defendants from acting as
`
`stockholders in the corporation with rights to own, possess, and vote the stock at issue. The
`
`complaint is not based on a note or contract or on a conspiracy and does not plead the elements
`
`of fraud or statutory theft. Accordingly, since the remedy sought is equitable in nature, the
`
`plaintiff’s claim is subject to equitable defenses, but not barred by the limitations periods set
`
`forth in General Statutes § 52-5 77 and the other statutes cited in the defendants’ first special
`
`defense.”
`
`

`

`The defendants have not shown that there is some decision or some principle of law
`
`which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a
`
`misapprehension of facts. See Hudson Valley Bank v. Kissel, 303 Conn. 624.
`
`'
`
`Accordingly, the motion to reargue is denied.
`
`BY THE COURT
`
`flag.-
`ROBERT B. S
`IRO
`
`JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE
`
`

`

`CHECKLIST FOR CLERK
`
`Docket Number
`
`CU “’[é’é Oéé (7/56
`
`Case Name
`
`r
`
`MM '/
`
`l
`
`l)
`
`. I//
`
`‘
`
`(Ag, Q
`
`/
`
`l
`
`‘ I,
`
`.
`
`V
`
`;ll - I /'
`
`Memorandum of Declsion dated
`
`9' ’9?’/
`
`File Sealed:
`
`Memo Sealed:
`
`yes
`
`yes
`
`no >4
`
`i no 3g
`
`This memorandum of Decision may be released to the Reporter of
`
`Judicial Decisions for publication.
`
`
`
`
`This Memorandum of Decision may NOT be rele se
`orter of Judicial Decisions for publication.
`
`0 the
`
`
`
`p
`
`
`
`

`

` Stipetior‘Court Case’ EooIt-up, ,
` Case LOok-up
`
`By Party Name
`,4
`3.:
`> By DOCket Number
`BY Attorney/Frrm Jurrs Number
`.8 PropertyAddress ,.‘ -
`
`-
`
`’
`
`_
`
`.
`
`Case Detail - HHD-CV16-6066913-S
`
`Page l-of 5
`
`.
`3022933418".‘ VILLAGEMORTGAGE COMPANY v'. GARBUS,RONALD Et AI
`
`I
`.
`.
`.
`c IIF
`I
`‘jPrefIXLDUB .‘v:
`. CaseType' M50
`File Date: 03/21/2016
`Return Date.04/19/2016
`”355$”
`3,.
`
`SmallClaIms
`' Case Detail No -995 'History scheduled Court Dates
`.‘ E-Serviges ‘Login.
`.Screen Section Help
`'"
`-
`I
`L
`1)
`Aubméyifirm Jurig-fiumbe, LOOK-up .9.
`To receive an email when there is activi
`on this case click here. It;
`
`Information U dated as of' 02/28/2019
`~
`-
`.
`.~
`, _.
`.
`'
`A
`' [Case Information '-
`,
`.
`,
`-.
`j
`y
`.
`.
`I
`Isc - Declaratory Judgment
`.
`.‘
`Case Type: M5 -
`Sh rt Calendar Lock-up
`BY C011“ L°°atl°n '
`.
`Court LOcation: HARTFORD JD
`
`
`Motion to‘ Seal or Close
`By Attorney/Firm JurIs Number
`Llst Type: COURT (CT)
`_
`
`t d th
`Fa'endarNchs
`*
`Trial 1:1th Claim: 8:221:81; (Th "l
`t
`t
`date" is the date the format n
`.
`'
`.
`=
`L A‘l
`D
`e as acron
`In
`Io wasen ere In
`
`Court Events Look-up
`‘
`ast at on ate: system)
`By Date
`
`ByDocket'Number
`
`
`By Attorney/Firm Juris Number DispositionInformation
`
`,
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Dispositlon Date: 01/29/2019
`.
`
`Pending FOreclosure sales '3'
`,
`'
`'
`, '
`Disposition: JUDGMENT AFTER COMPLETED TRIAL TO THE COURT WITH NO JURY,
`
`Understanding
`Judge-or Magistrate: HON ROBERT SHAPIRO
`
`
`-' Party, 8. Appearance lnfonnation
`
`
`
`NV; WM... 1.2...»
`
` H ‘. Party
`Plaintiff
`
`Attorney: 2 WEINSTEIN 81 WISSER PC (045674)
`SUITE 207
`
`29 SOUTH MAIN STREET
`
`WEST HARTFORD, CT 06107
`
`
`
`e
`
`'Defendant‘
`
`’
`
`
`'
`'
`'
`V
`'
`I'D-01 RONALDGARBUS
`Attorney. K. RENZULLO & ASSOCIATE LAW OFFICE (106076) File Date: 04/20/2016 I
`
`65 ELM STREET
`WINSTED, CT 06098
`D-02 GEORGANNE GARBUS
`Attorney: (2' RENZULLO & ASSOCIATE LAW OFFICE (106076) File Date: 04/20/2016
`65 ELM STREET
`WINSTED, CT 06098
`
`Defendant
`
`Viewing Documents on Civil, Housing and Small Claims Cases:
`
`|
`If there is an a in front of the docket number at the top of this page, then the file is electronic (paperless).
`
`Documents. court orders and judicial notices in electronic (paperless) civil, housing and small claims
`cases with a return date on or after January 1, 2014 are available publicly over the internet.‘ For more
`information on what you can view in all cases, View the Electronic Access to Court Documents Quick
`Card.
`
`For civil cases filed prior to 2014, court orders and judicial notices that are electronic are available
`publicly over the internet. Orders can be viewed by selecting the link to the order from the list below.
`Notices can be viewed by clicking the Notices tab above and selecting the link."
`
`Documents. court orders and judicial notices in an electronic (paperless) file can be viewed at any
`judicial district courthouse during normal business hours.‘
`
`Pleadings or other documents that are not electronic (paperless) can be viewed only during normal
`business hours at the Clerk's Office in the Judicial District where the case is located.‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`An Affidavit of Debt is not available publicly over the internet on small claims cases filed before October
`16, 2017.‘
`
`
`
`‘Any documents protected by law Or by court order that are Not open to the public cannot be viewed by the
`
`public online And can only be viewed in person at the clerk's office where the file is located by those authorized
`
`by law or court order to see them.
`
`_.= aw»... .._.I‘I...o.....'_. ”"0-me «.1.» .2......“w--.»
`
`
`Motions l Pleadings / DOcuments I Case Status“ _.
`
`http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHDCV1 6606... 2/28/2019
`
`