Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

.. . Case 3:02-cv-02272-AVC D0cument180 Filed 08/20/2004 Page 1 0f2
; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
E DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Q CROWN THEATERS, L.P., :
Plaintiff, :
v. : civil N6. 3:02CVQJ2E2;72 @\iC) 2
E 3%*2 ge: ‘““l?"l3
MILTON L. DALY, ET AL., . egg, 5; mmm
Defendants. r: winj so gmw
EQPA C] www
Q.R¤. ER: ······ in Q .,,..
(jc: QQQ
WRQ F9
This is an action for damages, brought, in part,§pursuant to
.....g _r‘_j'
common law tenets concerning breach of contract and professional
negligence. In relevant part, Crown Theatres, L.P. (“Crown”)
alleges that it hired James T. Martino and James Thomas Martino,
P.C. (the “Martino defendants”) to perform professional
architectural services in connection with Crown’s construction
projects. Crown further alleges that, in violation of the
contract and the applicable standard of care, the Martino
defendants thereafter improperly authorized the payment of
various construction invoices for work that had, in fact, not }
_ been completed. W
On April 30, 2004, Crown moved for partial summary judgment
(document no. 128) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, contending
that there were no questions of material fact with regard to the
issue of liability and therefore that it was entitled to partial
summary judgment. On April 28, 2004, the Martino defendants also
moved for summary judgment (document no. 136), contending that
there were no issues of material fact and that it was entitled to
summary judgment.
( I
- E
;;;;;;;;;Q§Qigg;§§;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,gg;;ggirqyj5;:e~;:~;;eefaeaaasaeaaeeeaaassaseas;Eareseeessaeaarrznaaa
—_ if if _
;;;;Q;;;QiQ;i;g;;;g;;;;;;;;;;;;;y,iiyjig·ijsa:~e;ea;y¢a;eeaseeaaagegaaeaseaeaaaaaaaaaaeaaggcesasaasaa
——»~———»-`Y..ri..l;__r__________Y_______i__Yi__g__*`_`Yi_ gg —_ —_ g

j . · Case 3:02-cv-02272-AVC Document 180 Filed 08/20/2004 Page 2 of 2
l
, Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the relevant ;
E law, the court concludes that issues of material fact exist and i
i therefore that the motions for summary judgment should be denied. é
i For example, with regard to the contract cause of action, there
T are questions of fact regarding the relevant terms and conditions
of the contract that was alleged to have existed between Crown
and the Martino defendants. With regard to the professional
I negligence cause of action, at a minimum, there are questions as
2 to whether the Martino defendants' breached the applicable
standard of care, and whether such breach proximately resulted in
harm to Crown. Therefore, inasmuch as there are issues of
material fact, the motions fer summary judgment (documents no.
128 & 136) are DENIED.
It is so ordered this __iQg]E day of August, 2004, at
U Hartford, Connecticut. A1 A gn I AJ
2 Alfrex vt Covello {
United States District Judge
L
E
V