Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** GIZELLA BIRO v. LEON C. HIRSCH ET AL. (AC 19639)
Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Hennessy, Js. Argued September 26, 2000--officially released February 27, 2001 Counsel

Suzanne L. McAlpine, with whom, on the brief, was Hugh F. Keefe, for the appellants (defendants-third party plaintiffs). Bryan L. LeClerc, with whom, on the brief, was Thomas G. Cotter, for the appellee (third party defendant).
Opinion

SPEAR, J. The defendants in this action, Leon C. Hirsch and Turi Josefson,1 husband and wife, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the third party defendant, Cornelia Ford, to strike the defendants' revised third party complaint against her.2 The third party complaint alleged conspiracy to commit extortion (count one), intentional infliction of emotional distress (count two) and tortious interference with a business expectancy (count three). The defendants claim that the court improperly (1) granted

the motion to strike and (2) ruled on the motion, as the motion had been argued and was pending before another trial court judge. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The defendants employed the plaintiff, Gizella Biro, as a housekeeper and cook for more than five years. In her amended complaint,3 the plaintiff claims that Hirsch abused their employment relationship by forcing her to have sexual relations with him over a period of several years and that Josefson attempted to engage her in similar conduct. At the time that the plaintiff filed the complaint, Hirsch served as president and chief executive officer of the defendant United States Surgical Corporation. The defendants subsequently filed a twelve count counterclaim, alleging, inter alia, violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.

Download Biro v. Hirsch.pdf

Connecticut Law