Salce v. Wolczek
| Decision Date | 16 May 2013 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Anthony H. SALCE, Sr. v. Walter WOLCZEK. |
Laura Pascale Zaino, John B. Farley, Hartford, and Dan E. LaBelle, Westport, in support of the petition.
Jeffrey J. White and Benjamin C. Jensen, Hartford, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 141 Conn.App. 528, 61 A.3d 1177, is granted, limited to the following issues:
“In affirming the trial court's entry of both the summary judgment and subsequent judgment in this matter: (1) Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the contract language unambiguously established that the mere execution of a contract for sale, and not the actual closing on the sale, was intended to trigger the defendant's payment obligation?
“(2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's postjudgment interest award?”
ROGERS, C.J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salce v. Wolczek
...is in the [affirmative], did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's postjudgment interest award?”4 Salce v. Wolczek, 308 Conn. 944, 66 A.3d 885 (2013).IThe defendant chiefly claims that the language of the contract is ambiguous. Consequently, he contends that the trial court ......
-
Salce v. Wolczek
...is in the [affirmative], did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's postjudgment interest award?"4 Salce v. Wolczek, 308 Conn. 944, 66 A.3d 885 (2013).I The defendant chiefly claims that the language of the contract is ambiguous. Consequently, he contends that the trial court......