throbber
DOCKET NO: HHDCV206125156S
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`ORDER 435707
`
`LORD KRISHNA 5 ELLA GRASSO, LLC
`
` V.
`BDL REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
` AT HARTFORD
`
`9/30/2020
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDER REGARDING:
`07/20/2020 107.00 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR PREJUDGMENT REMEDY / HEARING (JD-
`CV-53)
`
`The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby:
`
`ORDER: GRANTED
`
`This matter came before the court on the application of the plaintiff, Lord Krishna 5 Ella Grasso, LLC
`for a pre-judgment attachment of assets of the defendant, BDL Real Estate Holdings, LLC, to secure a
`judgment in favor of the plaintiff. After a hearing held on even date herewith in which the court received
`evidence from Neel Patel and exhibits the court makes the following findings of fact.
`The defendant received notice of the PJR hearing and made default of appearance. On October 16, 2018,
`the plaintiff executed an Option Agreement with the Town of Windsor Locks relative to certain property
`owned by the plaintiff known as 5 Ella T. Grasso Turnpike, Windsor Locks and 11 Ella T. Grasso
`Turnpike, Windsor Locks, with buildings and improvements thereon including a hotel and parking area
`(property). The Option Agreement provided the Town with the right to purchase the property in the
`period up to December 31, 2018, for a specified price. On December 31, 2018, the Town assigned all
`rights and interest in the Option Agreement to the defendant. On February 11, 2019, the plaintiff
`amended the Option Agreement to extend the option period through September 30, 2019. On September
`30, 2019, the plaintiff and the defendant signed an option exercise agreement in which the defendant
`agreed to purchase the property on or before December 31, 2019. Additionally, the defendant agreed to
`pay certain sums to the plaintiff including a payment of $150,000 on December 1, 2019. The Option
`Exercise Agreement contained a liquidated damages clause in the amount of $300,000, which the court
`finds reasonable and not punitive. The defendant has not paid the $150,000 payment due in December of
`2019 and did not purchase the property all in breach and violation of the Option Exercise Agreement.
`The court finds that the plaintiff has proven probable cause that judgment will be rendered for the
`plaintiff in an amount of $450,000 representing the December payment and the liquidated damages. The
`plaintiff has not proven with sufficient specificity entitlement to damages in excess of this amount.
`It is ordered that the plaintiff may attach to the value of $450,000 the goods or estate of the defendant.
`
`Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order.
`
`435707
`
`Judge: CESAR A NOBLE
`
`This document may be signed or verified electronically and has the same validity and status as a document with a physical
`(pen-to-paper) signature. For more information, see Section I.E. of the State of Connecticut Superior Court E-Services
`Procedures and Technical Standards (https://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/e-standards.pdf), section 51-193c of the
`Connecticut General Statutes and Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-4.
`
`HHDCV206125156S 9/30/2020
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket