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. ****************************************************** DORINA CUTLER ET AL. v. ANTOINETTA D. GREENBERG, EXECUTRIX (ESTATE OF ANTONIO AGOSTINELLI) DORINA CUTLER ET AL. v. LAWRENCE J. GREENBERG (AC 20118)
Schaller, Pellegrino and Dupont, Js. Argued September 14--officially released November 14, 2000 Counsel

Dorina Cutler, pro se, and Yolanda Jablonski, pro se, the appellants (plaintiffs in each case). James C. Delaney, with whom, on the brief, was James F. Cirillo, Jr., for the appellee (defendant in the first case). Lawrence J. Greenberg, pro se, the appellee (defendant in the second case).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiffs, Dorina Cutler and Yolanda Jablonski, appeal from the judgment of the trial court in the first case affirming the Hamden Probate Court order approving the accounting and distribu-

tion of assets in the estate of Antonio Agostinelli, and from the judgment in the second case in favor of the defendant, Lawrence J. Greenberg, who represented the executrix of the estate.1 The plaintiffs present sixteen issues on appeal, eight relating to the probate order and eight relating to their action for damages against Lawrence J. Greenberg. The vast majority of the issues on appeal challenge the factual findings of the trial court. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. The court's memorandum of decision thoughtfully and comprehensively outlines the facts and rather lengthy history of this appeal. We recite the necessary, relevant facts as found by the court as we discuss the issues. I We first consider the eight issues related to the appeal from the Probate Court order. The plaintiffs first claim that the court misinterpreted the reasons for the appeal and improperly treated the case as one seeking damages. Although the prayer for relief stated that ``the plaintiffs ask that the title of all the disputed assets be determined and . . . returned to the estate,'' the court properly determined that the case was an appeal from a probate order pursuant to General Statutes

Download Cutler v. Greenberg.pdf

Connecticut Law