Connecticut

Warning: The following opinion is provided for purposes of discussion only. We have not Shepardized™ this opinion, and do not know the subsequent disposition of this case nor whether the effect of the opinion has been overruled or superceded by other law.

Lisa O'Connell v. Jacob T. Chachkes,
No. CV020394916 (Conn.Super. 04/16/2003)

CV020394916

SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT

April 16, 2003, Decided

April 16, 2003, Filed

NOTICE: [*1] THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. COUNSEL IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS CASE.

DISPOSITION: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.

JUDGES: Joseph W. Doherty, Judge.

OPINIONBY: Joseph W. Doherty

OPINION: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, Lisa O'Connell, has commenced this action against the defendant, Jacob T. Chachkes, in two counts. Count One alleges medical malpractice and Count Two alleges fraudulent transfer of real estate.

In her Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a psychiatrist, repeatedly deviated from professional standards of care by engaging in a personal and sexual relationship with the plaintiff at a time when she was a patient of his and by his failure to utilize the care, skill and professional conduct ordinarily exercised by psychiatrists.

The Complaint also alleges that the defendant fraudulently transferred his interest in his commercial and residential properties to his spouse in contemplation of litigation against him and after the commission of the conduct alleged in the Complaint.

The defendant, in his objection to this motion, [*2] has denied the allegations in the Complaint and has provided an affidavit in which he contradicts the claims by the plaintiff as they relate to his care and treatment of her and as to their relationship. He also maintains that certain acts done by him were the result of her attempts to manipulate him and extort him.

"Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Doucette v. Pomes, 247 Conn. 442, 452, 724 A.2d 481 (1999). "In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . . . The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law . . . and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." Miles v. Foley, 253 Conn. 381, 386, 752 A.2d 503 (2000). [*3]

Practice Book § 17-49 provides that "the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

The defendant's counsel, in her argument to the court in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, remarked that the claims of the parties are in direct contradiction and constitute a classic "she said . . . he said" scenario. The court agrees with that assessment.

As for the allegation of fraudulent transfer, it is the plaintiff's burden to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence not only that property was conveyed, but that it was conveyed by the defendant for certain motives: e.g., to frustrate the plaintiff in her efforts to satisfy any judgment obtained against the defendant. Intent of the transferor is critical to that allegation. It is well recognized that allegations of misrepresentation and the like present questions of fact, and that "summary judgment procedure is particularly inappropriate where the inferences which the parties seek to have drawn deal with questions of motive, intent and subjective [*4] feelings and reactions . . . It is only when the witnesses are present and subject to cross-examination that their credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony can be appraised." Miller v. Bourgoin, 28 Conn.App. 491, 497-98, 613 A.2d 292 (1992).

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is hereby denied.

By the Court,

Joseph W. Doherty, Judge

The legal opinions are a matter of public record (that's how we got them), and as such there can be no defamation for republishing them. Sometimes, however, legal opinions are reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, etc., and we do not discover this fact until somebody points it out to us. As we do not desire to publish inaccurate or outdated information, if a legal opinion has been reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, please advise us of this fact immediately, by fax to (877) 698-0678 or you may also send regular postal correspondence to Riser Adkisson LLP at 1827 Powers Ferry Road, Building One, Suite 200, Atlanta GA 30339.