Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
KNL-CV-09-5012654S
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
V. NEW LONDON
AT NEW LONDON
Sutton, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel for the State of Connecticut, Attorney William F.
Dow, III, counsel for Mr. Moniz, Attorney Sydney T. Schulman, trustee in the disciplinary
action of Disciplinary Counsel v. Joseph Moniz and Mr. Moniz appeared before Hon.
No. HHD-CV08-4039487S to discuss, inter alia, the subject of this Motion for Contempt.
2. On that date, Judge Aurigemma called the behavior of Mr. Moniz and
Attorney Schulman with regard to the $62,500.00 paid to Mr. Moniz in violation of the
"unbelievable." [See Transcript, p. 18]. She further stated that Mr. Moniz was
"somebody who presumably wants to get back into the bar," but was "ignoring a
P_C.
orneys a aw-
160 Hempstead Street· P.O. Drawer 1430 • New London, CT 06320 • Tel. (860) 442-0444 • Juris No. 102515
garnishment order." [See Transcript, p. 40-41]. In light of the situation, the Court
ordered Mr. Moniz to account for the $62,500.00 by October 19, 2010 and "to refrain
from transferring that money, since it's clearly - he knew or should have known
clearly under a garnishment of Mr. Reardon and possibly others, but we know about Mr.
Reardon's." (Emphasis added). [See Transcript, p. 47]. She specified that "the
accounting should include where the money is, and if it's in a financial institution of any
sort, identify the financial institution, and provide a copy of the statement indicating
3. On October 19, 2010, Mr. Moniz filed with the Court, in the disciplinary
disregard of the express orders of Judge Aurigemma for two reasons: (1) It indicates
that, subsequent to the order to Mr. Moniz on October 5, 2010 "to refrain from
transferring that money," he spent at least $2,219.34 of the money on plane tickets, his
cell phone, rent and other expenses in direct violation of Judge Aurigemma's
instructions; and (2) He failed to provide any of the documentation demanded by the
Court, such as copies of bank statements and deposit slips indicating "where the money
is."
160 HelTlpstead Street· P.O. Dravver 1430 • Nevv London, CT 06320 • Tel. (860) 442-0444 • Juris No. 102515
circumvented the garnishment order issued by Leuba, J. and has also defied the orders
of Aurigemma, J. by converting more than $2,000.00 in garnished funds for his own
use.
that Mr. Moniz had to respect and honor the orders ot our courts and deprived the
the Defendant Joseph Moniz, Attorney Sidney Schulman, and Attorney Sandra Kee
Borges be held in contempt of court for violating and defying an Order of Garnishment
THE PLAINTIFFS
BY:~&a~~~~~~~~__~___
Kelly E. Rear
THE REARD N LAW FIRM, P.C.
Their Attorneys
P.C.
orneys a aw
160 Hetnpstead Street· P.O. Drawer 1430 • New London, CT 06320 • Tel. (860) 442-0444 - Juris No. 102515
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the above Amended Motion for Contempt
Against Joseph Moniz, Sidney Schulman and Sandra Kee Borges was mailed or
electronically delivered on this the 25th day of October, 2010 to all counsel and pro se
parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all
counsel and pro se parties of record who were electronically served as follows:
P.C.
orneys a
160 Hetllpstead Street· P.O, Drawer 1430 • New London, CT 06320 • Tel. (860) 442-0444 • Juris No. 102515
E-mail: Marilyn.Ford@quinnipiac.edu
Pro Se Counsel for Defendants
Gary G. Cooper and Cooper & McCann, LLP
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
V. NEW LONDON
AT NEW LONDON
ORDER
The foregoing Amended Motion for Contempt Against Joseph Moniz, Sidney
Schulman and Sandra Kee Borges having been presented and/or heard by this Court,
it is hereby Ordered:
GRANTED/DEN IED
By:
Judge/Clerk/Asst. Clerk
p.e.
orneys a aw
160 Hempstead Street. P.O. Drawer 1430 • New London, CT 06320 • Tel. (860) 442-0444 • Juris No. 102515
NO; HHD-CV08-4039487S SUPERIOR COURT
v. AT HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
BEFORE
A P PEA C E S
Trustee:
1 point.
3 here. Hello.
5 again.
"0._..
25 agreement.
6 of your order.
17 notice.
6 And there has never been any request for Judge Luba
17 Honor.
1 you're aware of .
... --_.
2 ATTY. REARDON: Yes, Your Honor.
8 courtroom.
11 to Attorney Moniz.
22 hearing.
9 served her.
15 garnishment.
27 mean -
8
2 motions.
14 it's intentional.
11 says
16 garnishment against.
6 about.
25 last time.
17 me.
1 totally untrue.
16 him.
8 don't care what you do. We have not been served with
16 not what you just said. You didn't say well it's not
26 that
13 Your Honor.
12 misleading.
22 unbelievable.
25 Sutton?
9 ahead.
21 1 igation.
23 those accounts.
7 would have been here, had I known what was going on.
20 beginning of June.
11 occurred.
23 was made out to Mr. Moniz. But even then since the
7 from you back to him, how could you - how could you
3 that correct?
6 received
16 right?
11 escrow.
19 know to be wrong.
21 approved
10 that.
13 copies.
12 was that the hearing that you were at Mr. Reardon was
17 (indiscernible)
21 that
33
3 Reardon (indiscernible)
" 20
account.
7 What I report -
26=
So there was your order.
23 that.
1 order.
1 future.
15 money.
18 what; you can't account for them cause you didn't get
19 them?
26 letter.
10 the first check was that was put into the account.
2 that?
4 for an accounting -
11 to account.
7 Court.
4 office got there late and that's why the motion had
18 record.
9 19, Mr. Moniz account for the money received from the
22 hearing.
25 you want?
1 THE COURT: So
l!I"'.
2 ATTY. REARDON: Your Honor, may we have,
11 now.
27 requests.
49
14 make any order about that. I'm not sure there are.
27 know when.
50
6 (End hearing)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DOCKET NO: HHD-CV08 4039487S SUPERIOR COURT
v. AT HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
C E R T I F I CAT ION
Recording Monitor
..~.
NO. HHD-CV-08-4039487S
t-
U
:i Respondent, through his undersigned counsel, submits the following accounting with
w
~
I
3:
U1 respect to the sum of$62,500.00 received from the City of Hartford on or about August 6, 2010.
'""
Z
. '"
<0
'"
<D
0
<D
cj
Z Majo,' Expenses (In Excess of SI00.00)
(/)
><
0 0:
en =0
-,
UJ
g
LL
LL
0
I
8 100.00
I/l M
0
~
.
CL
g
~
I
W
W
a:
I-
if)
W
.14
(!)
z
«a:
0
0
on
8112/10 3,200.00
'" i (Four months rent ast due)
8113/10 ATM Withdrawal - Mass 202.00
510.18
400.00
93.50
260.18
.40
200.00
2,500.00
350.00
100.00
A TM Withdrawal - CT 100.00
."
u.
f-
"
8
0
~ 1011211 0 Card Purchase
w
w
a:
f-
(/)
w
(!:l
1011311 0 Cue Assoc. Rent (Money 800.00
z
~ Order)
0
0
10113110 ATM Withdrawal for Rent 500.00
'"'"
Total: $54,063.00
the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London in \:vhich the plaintiff is represented
by The Reardon La,,\' Firm. That case is styled Boone v, f\i{oniz, Docket No,: KNL-CV
095012654-S. Presently pending before that Court is Mr. Moniz' Motion to Modify
Prej udgment Remedy and plaintiff s Motion for Contempt. Both 1110tions address an earlier
M
0
'"
<D
0
Order of the New London Judicial District of garnishment. That order prompted this Court to
f-
U
;i
UJ
~ order the instant accounting, The Garnishment Order, stemming from a prejudgment remedy,
I
~
UJ
.
Z '"
ro
ro
<0
N
0
appears to be in violation of applicable 1a\v (see Mr. Moniz' l'v'Jotion to Modify attached hereto as
'"
0 Z
'"0x <f)
ii' Exhibit A, with attachments omitted).
CO
UJ
...,::;J
U
u::
"
0 0
0
In any event, all pending 1110tions are scheduled for a hearing before the Superior Court in
f- M
UJ
0 N
I'
.
0 I'
M NeVi London on October 27, 2010. (See Order415595 attached hereto as ExhIbit B),
f-
'"
~
UJ
UJ
a:
f-
UJ The Respondent respectfully submits that it is in the interests of justice to allow
UJ
(!)
z
«
a:
0 resolution of the pending motions in the New London Judicial District prior to further
0
to
M
BY~'\-+---""""--.;'--I-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
O\V, III
BERG, BELT, DOW & KATZ P,C,
His Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
& . I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed first class, postage prepaid this
day of October, 2010 to the following:
Hartford, CT 06106
. a
£:!.
ti:i
uJ
a:
I
(f)
OJ
(!l
~
o
o
It>
""
EXHIBIT A
<.0 0
55 Z
ox ""
0::
aJ ::J
w -,
U
u: •
1.1
o g
f- ~
~ ~
a. ::::
f-
. a ~
W
W
a:
iii
w
(!)
z
«
a:
o
,.,"''"
DOCKET NO.: KNL-CV09-5012654-S SUPERIOR COURT
Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Seclion 52-278k, the Defendant Joseph Moniz,
hereby moves to modify the prejudgment remedy ordered in this matter to vacate the order of
garnishment entered by the Court on November 5, 2009. In support hereof, the Defendant states
as follows .
. 1. BACKGROUND
After the commencement of this action, the Plaintiffs sought a very broad Order of
Garnishment in which they sought La garnish "any and all compensation, income, payments, fees
and funds from whatever source to be paid to, recovered by, and/or received by the defendant,
Exhbit A. Said order was granted by the Court on November 5,2009 (Leuba, .I.). The
Defendant did not receive notice or service of the Plaintiffs' application for any pr Judgment
remedy; thus, he \-vas unable to appear andlor contest the application at the time of the original
. application.
I
Defendant Joseph A. Moniz by the City of Hartford in the amount of $62,500 each, which
represented attomey's fees owing to the Defendant in connection with the settlement in the
matter ofCinlron v. Vaughn, Case No. 3:69CV13,578 (EBB) (U.S. District COUli) and 07-5757
cv (Second Circuit COUli ofAppeaJs). The first check was received by Trustee Sydney
, Schulman as trustee for the Defendant and was deposited into an escrow account pursuant to the
. garnishment order. The second check was received directly by the Defendant which occasioned
the filing of a Motion for Contempt by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt was
The Defendant, Joseph A. Moniz, now seeks a modification ofthe prejudgment remedy
n. ARGUMENT
A. Legal Standard
Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-278k states that the COUli may, upon motion and
hearing, modify a prejudgment remedy upon the presentation of evidence which would have
"justified such court in modirying or denying such prejudgment remedy under the standards
In the present case, had the Defendant received notice of the application for the order of
, garnishment, he would have contested said application allhat time as set forth below.
the contrary, 110 prejudgment remedy shall be available to a person ... /fJr the garnishment of
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
100 Pearl S!reell7" FI.
I
2
Hartford, CT 06103
Juris No.: 428263
Phone: (860) 760·3300
Fax: (660) 760·3301
I earnings as defined in subsection (5) of section 52-350a." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278b
. (emphasis added). Section 52-350a(5) broadly defines "earnings" as "any debt accruing by
;1 reason personal services .... " Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-350a(5). Additionally, Connecticut
General Statutes Section 52-329, which governs foreign attachments, provides that "when a debt
otha than earnings, as defined in subdivision (5) of section 53-350a, is due from any person to
such defendant[,]" the plaintiff' may insert in his writ a direction to the officer to leave a true and
L<CL'J.,"'''' copy of it and the accompanying complaint, with such agent, trustee or debtor of the
The Connecticut Superior Court has denied prejudgment requests for garnishment or
I, n w mel " il,cj lid g!l1enl garnishment 0 Cco mil' i" io ns d lie to a ,ea I esIMe a gen t The court ootc~
i that "it is appropriate for the Superior Court, during a prejudgment remedy proceeding, to
, reso Ive issues of whether assets arc earnings exempt from gamishmen 1." ==..:..:==, 50 COHn.
Supp. at 465 (citing Board ofEduc. v. Booth, 232 Conn. 216 (1995)), The court fU11her stated
that "whether a payment obligation constitutes 'eamings' exempt fro111 prejudgment garnishment
The Harrington COUlt reasoned that the defendant realtor had engaged in "personal
i
I services" by listing and selling homes for a broker as a real estate salesperson. 'ld. at 466 The
. court noted that her commissions were a debt accruing to her by reaSon of those personal
services. 1sL at 467. Thus, the COUlt found that her commissions were "earnings" exempt from
Oct. 28, 1994) (Levin, 1.), the COlut ruled that a laVvyer's ownership interest in a law firm
: partnership could not be subject to prejudgment garnishment. The plaintitI argued that the
, interest
could be garnished because a partner's share of the profits and surplus of the partnership
was a function of his status as a partner and was not accrued by reason of his personal services.
ld. at *4-5. The court disagreed, noting that the plaintiff's argument ignored the reality of the
peculiar species that is a law firm. lit" at *5. Generally, in a law firm partnership, a paItner's
earnings are inextricably interrelated with the personal services he renders on the one hand and
with his status as a pmtner on the other. Id. at *6. Earnings from a law partnership are not
"passive income." lei. The court concluded that in the absence of any evidence as to the nature
and terms oftile defendant's parlnershi p, the defendants' interest ill the proiits and su11)]us of the
. partnership arc "earnings" as defined by Conn. Gen. Slat. § 52-350a(5) and therefore were
exempt from prejudgment garnishment by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278b. Id. at *9.
In the present case, it cannot be contested that the tvv'O checks issued by the City of
. Hartford constitute legal fees owed to the Defendant and, therefore, are "earnings" as
"earnings" of the Defendant should never have been included in the November 5, 2009 Order of
IGarnishment as such monies are exempted from prejUdgment garnishment. See Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 52-278b. Accordingly, the references in the November 5, 2009 garnishment order permitting
garnishment of "compensation," "income," and "fees" «from whatever source" are contrary to
Because the legal fees paid by the City of Hartford to Joseph A. Moniz (comprised oftwo
checks in the amount of $62,500 each) should never have been subject to the Order of
GOl.DBERG SEGAlLA llP
100 Pearl SlreeV7'" FL
4
Hart/Old, CT 06103
Juris No<: 428263
Phone: (860) 750<l3oo
Fax: (860) 150<3301
I Garnisru11ent, the Defendant was legally entitled to receive the second check directly from the
City of Haltford, Fmther, the funds held by Tmstee Sydney Schulman from the first check
III. CONCLUSION
Because the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a prejudgment garnislmlent of any of the
Defendant Joseph A. Moniz's earnings, the prejudgment remedy in this case should be modified
i in order to vacate that part of the November 5, 2009 Order of Garnishrnent directing the
gi:Ul1ishment of earnings, Fmther, the Court should find that the Defendant Joseph A Moniz was
legally entitled to receive the second check in the amollnt of $62,500 directly from the City of
il Hartford and should order that the first check in the amount of $62,500, currently held by Trustee
THE DEFENDANT
JOSE ~ MONIZ
\
"
BY _\--_-+_ _ _ _ _ _ __
, stofaro@goldbergsegalla.com
The foregoing Motion having been heard by the Court, it is hereby ORDERED:
GRANTED / DENIED
BY THE COURT
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage
prepaid, to the following counsel and pro se parties of record this 13th day of September, 2010:
i i BrockDubin, Esq.
~\r
Donahue, Durham & Noonan, PC
741 Concept Park
Guilford, CT 06437 I
\ \ 1---------.
\~l izabeth M. Cristofaro
6259.1
<D 0
55 Z
x
o \2
a:
'"
w :>
-,
~
u.
.
...o
(j)
g
~
<'?
o
u. '"
::::
. 8
>-
w
'"
w
...
a::
(f)
w
(!l
Z
~
o
o
'"'"
ORDER 415595
DOCKET NO: KNLCV095012654S SUPERIOR COURT
10118/20 I 0
ORDER
ORDER:
415595