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. ****************************************************** LANDAU, J., concurring. Although I agree with the majority's result, I concur in the opinion because I do not think that we need to reach the issue raised in part I of the majority opinion and to do so renders a portion of this opinion advisory. A review of the procedural history of this case is necessary to support my position. In response to the defendant's counterclaim, the plaintiffs raised the special defense that the counterclaim was time barred by merely alleging that the ``counterclaimant's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.'' The plaintiffs did not identify by number the statute on which they were basing their special defense.1 During trial and in their trial brief, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's counterclaim was barred by General Statutes

Download Garofalo v. Squillante.pdf

Connecticut Law