From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 12, 2021
339 Conn. 901 (Conn. 2021)

Opinion

10-12-2021

The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. Achyut M. TOPE et al.

Thomas P. Willcutts, Hartford, in support of the petition. William R. Dziedzic, Farmington, in opposition.


Thomas P. Willcutts, Hartford, in support of the petition.

William R. Dziedzic, Farmington, in opposition.

The named defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 202 Conn. App. 540, 246 A.3d 4 (AC 40959), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the named defendant's challenge to the plaintiff's standing to prosecute this action, and, thus, the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, represented an improper collateral attack on one or more of the earlier judgments rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff?

"2. If the answer to the first certified question is ‘no,’ should the judgment of the Appellate Court be affirmed on the alternative ground that the trial court properly had denied the named defendant's motion to open, in which the named defendant claimed that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction."

ECKER, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.


Summaries of

Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 12, 2021
339 Conn. 901 (Conn. 2021)
Case details for

Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope

Case Details

Full title:The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. Achyut M. TOPE et al.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Oct 12, 2021

Citations

339 Conn. 901 (Conn. 2021)
260 A.3d 483

Citing Cases

The Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Tope

And "2. [i]f the answer to the first certified question is ‘no,’ should the judgment of the Appellate Court…

Pennymac Corp. v. Tarzia

Second, the plaintiff argues that the defendant's appeal constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on…