Fraulo v. Gabelli

17 Citing cases

  1. Fraulo v. Gabelli

    686 A.2d 125 (Conn. 1996)

    Decided December 4, 1996 The petition by Anthony N. Fraulo and CFC Greenwich Realty Corporation for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 37 Conn. App. 708 (AC 12961), is denied. David P. Burke, in support of the petition.

  2. Dubaldo Electric, LLC v. Montagno Construction, Inc.

    119 Conn. App. 423 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 19 times
    In DuBaldo Electric, LLC v. Montagno Construction, Inc., 119 Conn.App. 423 (2010), the Appellate Court was called upon to determine whether § 52-249a had retroactive effect.

    "As we have frequently stated, we cannot, and do not, retry the facts." Fraulo v. Gabelli, 37 Conn. App. 708, 718, 657 A.2d 704 (1995), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 947, 686 A.2d 125 (1996). The defendants' claim, therefore, fails.

  3. Exley v. Connecticut Yankee Greyhound Racing

    59 Conn. App. 224 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 97 times
    In Exley, the trial court vacated the arbitration award, if any, in favor of the plaintiff against an entity known as Plainfield Pets Program, Inc. (Plainfield Pets), and the plaintiff cross appealed, challenging that action.

    Vail v. American Way Homes, Inc., 181 Conn. 449, 451, 435 A.2d 993 (1980)." Fraulo v. Gabelli, 37 Conn. App. 708, 714, 657 A.2d 704 (1995), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 947, 686 A.2d 125 (1996). "The process which governs the confirmation of arbitral awards is well settled by our cases. If the parties have agreed in the underlying contract that their disputes shall be resolved by arbitration, the arbitration clause in the contract is a written submission to arbitration.

  4. Franco v. East Shore Development

    755 A.2d 345 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    " (Citations omitted.) Fraulo v. Gabelli, 37 Conn. App. 708, 716-17, 657 A.2d 704 (1995), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 947, 686 A.2d 125 (1996). Comparing the submission to the decision of the arbitrators, we conclude that the arbitrators' decision conforms to the broad unrestricted submission.

  5. Afscme, Coun. 4, Loc. 1522, Afl-Cio v. Bridgeport

    734 A.2d 1007 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 6 times

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fraulo v. Gabelli, 37 Conn. App. 708, 716-17, 657 A.2d 704 (1995), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 947, 686 A.2d 125 (1996). Upon a comparison of the submission to the decision of the arbitrators, we conclude that the arbitrators' decision conforms to the broad unrestricted submission.

  6. Scinto v. Sosin

    51 Conn. App. 222 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 79 times
    In Scinto v. Sosin, 51 Conn. App. 222, 721 A.2d 552 (App. Ct. 1998), cert. denied, 247 Conn. 963, 724 A.2d 1125 (1999), for example, the trial court limited the scope of an arbitration clause to those issues arising from construction occurring after November 15, 1990, where the contract containing the clause was memorialized and executed on that date.

    Id., 778. Additionally, at oral argument, the defendants cited Fraulo v. Gabelli, 37 Conn. App. 708, 714-715, 657 A.2d 704 (1995), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 947, 686 A.2d 125 (1996), for the proposition that the issue of arbitrability was a matter for the arbitrator to decide. The cases on which the defendants rely are distinguishable from the present case.

  7. Willington Education Assoc. v. Board of Education

    45 Conn. App. 769 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 5 times
    In Willington Education Ass'n v. Board of Education of Willington, 45 Conn.App. 769, 773, 699 A.2d 186 (1997), the Appellate Court noted the limited scope of judicial review of an award where, as here, there was an unrestricted submission to arbitration: " [w]hen parties mutually agree to submit their dispute to arbitration, judicial review is limited in scope and the resulting award is not reviewable for errors of law or fact."

    As noted, [i]n determining whether a submission is unrestricted, we look to the authority of the arbitrator. Fraulo v. Gabelli, 37 Conn. App. 708, 715, 657 A.2d 704 (1995). The authority of an arbitrator to adjudicate the controversy is limited only if the agreement contains express language restricting the breadth of issues, reserving explicit rights, or conditioning the award on court review.

  8. Steiner v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company

    44 Conn. App. 415 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 25 times
    Recognizing authorities for proposition that "`fire policy provisions precluding recovery of replacement cost until replacement is complete are reasonable as protection against "the moral hazard," and enforceable'"

    As noted, "[i]n determining whether a submission is unrestricted, we look to the authority of the arbitrator." Fraulo v. Gabelli, 37 Conn. App. 708, 715, 657 A.2d 704 (1995). "The authority of an arbitrator to adjudicate the controversy is limited only if the agreement contains express language restricting the breadth of issues, reserving explicit rights, or conditioning the award on court review.

  9. MUSCARELLA v. MISH

    2010 Ct. Sup. 16369 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)

    On February 2, 2009, however, the defendants properly filed with the arbitrator a motion to reconsider his decision awarding attorneys fees rendered on January 22, 2009. See, e.g., Fraulo v. Gabelli, 37 Conn.App. 708, 713, 657 A.2d 704 (1995), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 947, 686 A.2d 125 (1996). As a result, the court will not grant the plaintiff's motion on this ground.

  10. Klein v. Bratt

    2010 Ct. Sup. 92 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)

    Contract principles apply. Fraulo v. Gabetti, 37 Conn.App. 708 (1995); Holmes v. Holmes, 32 Conn.App. 317, 321 (1993). A joint venture exists where two or more parties combine property, money, efforts, skills and/or knowledge to seek a profit in some common undertaking without any actual partnership or corporate designation.