Legal Opinion

Milazzo v. Schwartz

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided April 26, 2005No. AC 24468PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BERDON, J.

The named defendant, Barry S. Schwartz,1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the plaintiffs motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment. The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) opened a deficiency judgment to correct a mistake made in the calculation of the amount due to the plaintiff, Samuel *594P. Milazzo and (2) rendered the corrected deficiency judgment because there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kim v. MagnottaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  2. Ravizza v. WaldieConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
  3. Connecticut National Bank v. GagerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
  4. Cusano v. Burgundy Chevrolet, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1999
  5. Milazzo v. SchwartzConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Guzman v. YerozConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
  2. Forte v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2005
  3. Rogan v. RungeeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
  4. Cianfrani v. Commonwealth, State Employees' Retirement BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. State v. DaytonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API