Page 30 - CLT090720

30 ¦ SEPTEMBER 7, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

that the court should consider them to be unre- Plaintiff was working out with her personal
liable. The court disagreed, finding that defen- trainer, Michael Brennan, and suffered serious
dant did not even try to establish that every one injuries. Plaintiff claimed that Brennan was of-
of Margolies’ opinions was fatally flawed. It held fering personal training through himself and/or
that defendant did not establish that a claimed through his LLC, Manimal Fitness, and was an
lack of competence for one opinion in the report authorized agent of Iron Factory Gym. Plaintiff
was enough to disregard the entire report. claimed that Brennan had a financial agreement
with IFG where he would pay them $10 for each
client he brought to IFG. There was no arrange-
LITIGATION ment with IFG that would require IFG to pay

Court Found for Plaintiff in Lawsuit Brennan. Plaintiff never paid IFG and admitted
Regarding Hay Elevator Left Behind that IFG never solicited her business. Follow-
ing her injuries, plaintiff sued former defendant
During the Sale of Plaintiff’s Home Brennan and defendant IFG. IFG moved for
summary judgment and the court granted it. De-
CASE: Bylan v Mouradjian fendants stated that their relationship was not of
COURT: Tolland J.D. principal and agent, because each business had
DOC. NO.: CV-18-5010691 its own name and legal entity. The court noted
COURT OPINION BY: Farley that how they conducted their businesses sup-
DATE: August 07, 2020 • PAGES: 7 ported this position. IFG did not control how
Brennan conducted his personal training busi-
Plaintiff brought an action for replevin seek- ness and IFG was not required to pay Brennan
ing the return of a hay elevator left at her home under any circumstance. The court noted that
after selling the home to defendant. Plaintiff their relationship was more like lessor and lessee,
currently had the hay elevator in her possession and the essential ingredient of agency was not
pursuant to a prejudgment order of replevin, present, because Brennan was not doing some-
but while the case was pending, the plaintiff was thing for the benefit of IFG, but rather just leas-
prohibited from using, selling, or transferring ing space. Therefore, the court found that the
possession of the elevator. The court found for plaintiff failed to meet the burden of presenting
the plaintiff and vacated those restrictions. De- evidence that demonstrated the existence of some
fendant argued that plaintiff never owned the disputed factual issue as to apparent agency.
elevator and even if she did, she abandoned it
by leaving at the home at the time of the closing.
The court found that plaintiff did not intention-
ally leave it behind, and that the elevator was an PERSONAL INJURY • LEGAL MALPRACTICE

heirloom passed down through generations of

plaintiff’s husband’s family. Therefore, the court Court Ruled on Defendants’ Motion
found that plaintiff ’s interest in the elevator was For Summary Judgment In Lawsuit
superior to that of defendant. The court rejected Regarding Plaintiff’s Ex-Husband
defendant’s argument that plaintiff abandoned
the elevator; it reasoned that abandonment re- Forging Legal Documents
quires an intent to abandon, and here plaintiff
accidentally left it behind. Therefore, the court CASE: Gottesman v. Kratter
found for the plaintiff. COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV-17-6031889
COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
PERSONAL INJURY • CORPORATE ENTITIES DATE: March 17, 2020 • PAGES: 33

Court Granted Defendants’ Motion for Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against her ex-hus-
band (defendant Sibboni), against an attorney
that was allegedly complicit with Sibboni in
Summary Judgment, Finding There Was certain misconduct (defendant Schwartz), and
No Evidence of Apparent Agency against her own lawyer who had represented her
in the marriage dissolution (defendant Kratter).
CASE: Miskar v. Brennan Allegedly, Sibboni, with the help of Schwartz,
COURT: Danbury J.D. forged plaintiff ’s signature on legal documents
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6031721 relating to a number of properties. Kratter was
COURT OPINION BY: D’Andrea aware of some of the instances but failed to
DATE: August 13, 2020 • PAGES: 29

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune