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

_ J E Case 3:02-cv-02272-AVC Document 179 Filed 08/18/2004 Page 1 of 2 i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CROWN THEATERS, L.P., : jj 5%
Pl‘“““ff’ Z ra
v. z civil NO. (Qc)
MILTON L. DALY, ET AL., Q @§§g Z; WTE
Defendant. : ggég gn Q3?
- cz
oirrmm 5 ES
This is an action for damages, brought, in part, pursuant to
the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552a,
and common law tenets concerning conversion and unjust
enrichment. In relevant part, the plaintiff, Crown Theaters,
L.P. (“Crown”), alleges that a defendant, one Milton Daly, a
former officer of Crown, embezzled approximately six million
dollars from Crown during the term of his employment at Crown.
Crown further alleges that an additional defendant, one Anne Q
i Daly, Milton Daly's wife, benefitted from Milton Daly’s tortious I
conduct and is therefore liable in her own regard.
- On February 24, 2004, Anne Daly filed a motion for summary
judgment (document no. 102), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56,
contending that Crown has failed to raise an issue of material
fact and therefore that she is entitled to judgment as a matter I
of law. For its part, Crown has filed a cross motion for summary i
judgment (document no. 120) against Anne Daly, contending that \
the undisputed facts establish that Crown is entitled to judgment K
with regard to its causes of action for conversion and unjust E
enrichment. [

F"I_"—t—vv·c-——e—+=+>e;zz2:222E2in5;;ggEiiiij;;2;;;;;;_vi`a—V—%`—V_~`—V_%`—?_%i`?_Q"?


1
· “~ Case 3:02-cv-02272-AVC Document 179 Filed 08/18/2004 Page 2 of 2
Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the relevant
law, the court concludes that issues of material fact exist and
therefore that the motions for summary judgment should be denied.
The principal issue presented by the motions for summary judgment
is whether Anne Daly exercised control over and benefitted from
the funds that Miltion Daly embezzled from Crown. In this
regard, there is conflicting evidence. For example, although
Anne Daly has filed an affidavit indicating that she exercised no
control over and did not benefit from the funds at issue, Crown
has submitted evidence, including checks signed by Anne Daly that
were drawn on embezzled funds, which indicate otherwise. In
light of this conflicting evidence, the motions for summary
judgment (documents no. 102 & 120) are DENIED. gee Langman
Fabrics v. Graff Californiawear, Inc., 160 F.3d 106, 115-16 (2d
Cir. 1998) (conflicting evidence precludes summary judgment).
It is so ordered this _f@g[ daynof|AugustCq2002, at
Hartford, Connecticut. · A I A I 1
-- AlfredVV. Covello
United States District Judge
1
1
1
I 1
__ _ _____,______,________M__________m_,_i.,m_i_.,_c, _,..,,,. ,.,1