Al Dente, LLC v. Consiglio
Decision Date | 21 March 2017 |
Docket Number | AC 38279 |
Citation | 157 A.3d 743,171 Conn.App. 576 |
Parties | AL DENTE, LLC, et al. v. Richard E. CONSIGLIO, Executor (Estate of Flora Consiglio), et al. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Laurence V. Parnoff, with whom, on the brief, was Laurence V. Parnoff, Jr., for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Daniel P. Scholfield, with whom, on the brief, was Hugh F. Keefe, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).
Lawrence J. Greenberg, for the appellee (defendant Ruth Consiglio).
The plaintiffs, Al Dente, LLC, and Carmine Capasso, appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Robert G. Consiglio, Ruth F. Consiglio, and Richard E. Consiglio, individually, and as executor of the estate of Flora Consiglio. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to any count of their operative complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Mindful of the procedural posture of the case, we set forth the following facts as gleaned from the pleadings, affidavits, and other proof submitted, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Martinelli v. Fusi , 290 Conn. 347, 350, 963 A.2d 640 (2009). The defendants are owners of Sally's Apizza (Sally's), a culinary landmark on Wooster Street in New Haven. In 2013, the defendants entertained offers to purchase Sally's and the land on which it is situated. One such offer was made on December 3, 2013, by "Al Dente, LLC, a to be formed Connecticut limited liability company" comprised of Capasso and five other individuals, including his brother, Vincent Capasso, Kristen Keslow, Marc Keslow, and Tara Knight (collectively, original entity).1 Weeks earlier, the original entity had retained Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman, LLP (law firm), to help prepare that offer and to organize Al Dente, LLC. The November 26, 2013 retainer agreement furnished by the law firm and "[a]ccepted, acknowledged, and agreed to" by Capasso was addressed to six individuals—Knight, Capasso, Kristen Keslow, Marc Keslow, Vincent, Capasso's brother, and Giuseppe DeLucia—and outlined 2 The law firm drafted the December 3, 2013 written agreement to purchase Sally's, which Capasso signed on behalf of the original entity.
The defendants received several bids in excess of one million dollars. Capasso thereafter grew concerned that the original entity's bid was being "used to get [other bidders] to offer more and to increase [the] purchase price ...." He therefore informed the defendants that the original entity would not "continue with the purchase of Sally's unless [they] came to an agreement [on] a bidding process to set the [c]ontract purchase price and to keep final bids confidential." On March 27, 2014, members of the original entity met with certain defendants and their legal representatives, at which time they orally agreed to the following protocols regarding the bidding process for the purchase of Sally's (collectively, bidding agreement): (1) initial bids would be disclosed to all parties presenting offers; (2) final bids would be due by 5 p.m. on April 14, 2014; (3) the identities of the bidding parties would remain confidential; (4) any bids submitted after that deadline would not be accepted; and (5) the highest bid would set the sale price. The defendants further agreed to "commence negotiations for sale with the highest bidder" following the submission of final bids. Consistent with the foregoing, Attorney Robert W. Lynch, acting on behalf of the defendants,3 disclosed the results of the first round of bidding in an April 7, 2014 e-mail to the bidding parties. In that correspondence, Lynch also apprised the parties that "[t]here will be one more round of bidding with all bids due by 5 p.m." on April 14, 2014.
Capasso submitted a timely second bid on behalf of the original entity in an April 14, 2014 e-mail to Lynch. Attached to that e-mail was a letter addressed to the defendants regarding the "Purchase and Sale of Assets and Real Property." That correspondence contained a proposed "agreement [that] sets forth the terms and conditions for the acquisition ... of the pizzeria business known as Sally's ... together with the real property located at 237 and 245 Wooster Street ...." Twelve pages in length, that proposed agreement states that it The proposed agreement also contains a merger clause, as § 9 (c) states that The proposed agreement concludes by prescribing an exclusive method of acceptance, stating: "If you are in agreement with the terms of this agreement, please so indicate by countersigning this letter in the appropriate space below, whereupon this agreement shall become a binding agreement among the signatories hereto." None of the defendants signed that agreement.
At approximately 5:30 p.m. on the evening of April 14, 2014, Lynch e-mailed the bidding parties and disclosed the amounts of two new bids.4 He further stated that "[w]e plan to meet with the [defendants] to go over the new bids and negotiate the terms and conditions of the purchase agreement." After learning that the original entity was the high bidder, Capasso emailed Lynch on April 15, 2014, stating in relevant part: The following day, Knight e-mailed Lynch. Noting that "[f]rom your e-mail it appears we have the highest offer," Knight inquired as to the "next step" in the process.5 On April 17, 2014, Lynch replied that "Greenberg and I need to review your contract with our clients and make a list of issues that need to be worked out."
On April 21, 2014, Capasso again e-mailed Lynch, stating that he was "following up to see if any terms within our bid need to be worked through."6 Capasso further stated that "[d]uring our [March 27, 2014] meeting with the [defendants] the parameters of the sale were brought up and we were informed that the highest price at the last bid would prevail and that the terms of the sale would be worked out. It has been brought to my attention that the condition of expansion and the pizza [oven] are not acceptable to the [defendants].
Please strike this term from our proposal. Please let us know if there are any other terms within our proposal that are not acceptable to the [defendants] and we will work out those terms as well" Lynch subsequently informed Capasso that he needed to meet with his clients
On May 9, 2014, Lynch sent an e-mail to the law firm, which stated simply: "Here are the comments of the [defendants] to the latest Al Dente proposal." Attached to that e-mail was a one page document containing nine comments regarding the April 14, 2014 agreement (comment sheet).7 In an e-mail sent to the law firm later that day, Capasso stated that "[o]ur group will be meeting to discuss the comments this weekend."8
On May 14, 2014, Capasso sent Lynch a two sentence letter that reads: 9 Appended to that letter were two documents. The first was a cashier's check in the amount of $333,000 payable to "Robert W. Lynch Trustee" and "Lawrence J. Greenberg Trustee." The second was a modified version of the comment sheet, to which the following had been added: (addendum sheet).10 Capasso signed that document, as did a notary public and two "witnesses" thereto.11 Notably, that document was not signed by any of the defendants.
As Robert G. Consiglio swore in his affidavit, the defendants instructed Lynch "to return the unsolicited 'deposit check.' " By letter dated May 20, 2014, and addressed to Attorneys Samuel M. Hurwitz and Jennifer Deakin at the law firm, Lynch stated: "Enclosed please find the unsolicited cashier's check which was delivered to our office last week." Later that day, Deakin emailed Lynch and Greenberg to inform them that Lynch replied approximately one hour later, stating that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NetScout Systems, Inc. v. Gartner, Inc.
...... triable issue of fact." Perille v. Raybestos-Manhattan-Europe, Inc. , 196 Conn. 529, 543,. 494 A.2d 555 (1985); Al Dente, LLC v. Consiglio , 171. Conn.App. 576, 587, 157 A.3d 743 (2017); Beebe v. East. Haddam , 48 Conn.App. 60, 64, 708 A.2d 231 (1998). ......
-
Dennis Eng'g Grp. v. Peoples United Bank (In re Old CP, Inc.)
...(1983), as well as Al Dente, LLC v. Consiglio, No. NNHCV146049694S, 2015 WL 5315524, at *4 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 10, 2015), aff'd, 171 Conn.App. 576 (2017), and Data Gen. Corp. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank, 502 F.Supp. 776, 785 (D. Conn. 1980). Each of these arguments defies common understanding......
-
Consiglio v. Al Dente, LLC, CV156056847S
...that " there was never a binding bidding agreement between the parties, but rather an invitation for the plaintiffs to extend an offer." Id. Finally, the court granted summary judgment as to the CUTPA claim, because that claim was derivative of Al Dente’s other claims, which had been decide......
-
Steephill Renewables, LLC v. Board of Education of Town of Weston
...... provision, the formality is required. . . Recently,. in Al Dente, LLC v. Consiglio , 171 Conn.App. 576,. 157 A.3d 743 (2017), the court recognized and briefly. addressed a proposed contract that ......
-
Business Litigation: 2017 in Review
...[76] Id. [77] Id. at 138. [78] Id. at 139. [79] Id. [80] Id. at 143-144. [81] Id. at 146. [82] Id. at 156-157. [83] Id. at 153. [84] 171 Conn. App. 576, 157 A.3d 743 (2017). [85] Id. at 594. [86] Id. at 584. [87] Id. at 592 [88] Id. at 593, 594 (citations and internal punctuation omitted). ......