ABELE TRACTORS EQUIPMENT CO., INC. v. NORWALK EXCAVATING CO., INC. ET AL.

2007 Ct. Sup. 20207
No. FST CV 054006148 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
November 1, 2007

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
KEVIN TIERNEY, JUDGE.

The court has reviewed the entire file, the February 7, 2007 transcript, the exhibits and the Attorney Trial Referee’s report dated May 25, 2007. In accordance with P.B. § 19-17(a) this court cannot accept the report and refers the matter to the same Attorney Trial Referee for a new trial on the issue of calculation of damages only in the above file. Upon the submission of a new ATR report the court reserves the right to decide all issues presented by counsel in response to the May 25, 2007 Referee’s Report as well as any issues arising from the new Referee’s Report.

This calculation of damages shall include the following.

(1) What evidence supports the finding in Exhibit I relating to invoice #64866 in the amount of “$69.20” in the Open column was allowed?

(2) What evidence supports the finding in Exhibit I relating to invoice #65264 in the amount of “$81.41” in the Open column was allowed?

(3) What evidence supports the finding in Exhibit I relating to invoice #68664 in the amount of “$81.38” in the Open column was allowed?

(4) What evidence supports the finding in Exhibit I relating to invoice #70661 in the amount of “$415.92” in the Open column was allowed?

(5) What evidence supports the finding in Exhibit I relating to invoice #72555 in the amount of “$362.14” in the Open column was allowed?

(6) What evidence supports the finding in Exhibit I relating to invoice #74301 in the amount of “$443.55” in the Open column was allowed? CT Page 20208

(7) What mathematical calculation did the ATR perform in order to determine damages in the amount of $31,702.83?

(8) Did the ATR use the 2% per month interest rate in calculating any damage award?

(9) What evidence did the ATR have that 10% was the proper rate of interest when Gen. Stat. § 37-3a permits any interest rate up to 10% per annum be used?

(10) Did the ATR determine and calculate interest on each separate invoice?

(11) Did the ATR determine and calculate interest as of a specific date for each invoice?

(12) Did the ATR perform a computation of interest on each invoice to determine a total award of interest?

(13) Did the ATR give credit for the sum of $3,565.64 as stated in Exhibit D last page invoice dated 9/29/04?

(14) Did the ATR award damages for “ADDITIONAL CHARGES” as set forth in Exhibit D last page invoice dated 9/29/04?

(15) Did the ATR consider the “NEXT PAGE” as set forth in Exhibit D last page invoice dated 9/29/04?

(16) Did the ATR conclude that Exhibit D was missing at least one page since no document appears in Exhibit D after “CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE” on the invoice dated 9/29/04?

(17) Did the ATR award damages in the amount of $31,702.83, and if so, did the ATR perform certain calculations independent of Exhibit I, and if so, did the ATR state those independent calculations?

(18) How did the ATR calculate the per diem interest rate of $8.81?

(19) Did the ATR reserve the issue of attorneys fees and the amount of attorneys fees, if any, to the court since these issues involved a matter of law?

The ATR is requested to review the file and attend to any Motions to Correct filed by counsel after May 25, 2007. CT Page 20209

CT Page 20210