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. ****************************************************** ROBERT A. GINSBURG v. CADLE COMPANY (AC 19915)
Landau, Zarella and O'Connell, Js. Argued October 17, 2000--officially released January 16, 2001 Counsel

Kenneth A. Votre, for the appellant (plaintiff). Timothy D. Miltenberger, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

O'CONNELL, J. The plaintiff, Robert A. Ginsburg,1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his amended petition for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.2 He claims that the court improperly (1) held that he failed to sustain his burden of proof that there was newly discovered evidence, (2) held that he had the burden of due diligence in discovering untrue testimony and (3) failed to find that untrue testimony at the original trial in this matter affected the outcome of the case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The genesis of this appeal is a promissory note from

Ginsburg to Great Country Bank. A similar note was signed by his uncle, Gary Ginsberg.3 The defendant, Cadle Company (Cadle) purchased both notes from Great Country Bank as part of a package of notes. Cadle thereafter brought separate actions against Robert Ginsburg and Gary Ginsberg. A judgment of $161,643.88 plus $15,000 in attorney's fees rendered in the action against Robert Ginsburg was affirmed on appeal in Cadle Company v. Ginsburg, 51 Conn. App. 392, 721 A.2d 1246 (1998), cert. denied, 247 Conn. 963, 724 A.2d 1125 (1999). Whether Cadle was a holder in due course of Ginsburg's note was at issue in the former trial. In that action, the court determined that Cadle was a holder in due course because it took the note for value, in good faith and without notice of any defenses. Id., 395

Download Ginsburg v. Cadle Co..pdf

Connecticut Law