U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1990

Pinsky v. Duncan

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided April 25, 1990 · Mahoney, Newman, Pratt

907 F.2d 17; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6861; 1990 WL 88602 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Joanne S. Faulkner, New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff-appellant Brian K. Doehr., Andrew M. Calamari, Bronx, N.Y. (Calamari & Calamari, of counsel), for defendant-appellee John F. Di Giovanni., Henry S. Cohn, Hartford, Conn., Asst. Atty. Gen. of the State of Conn. (Clarine Nardi Riddle, Atty. Gen. of the State of Conn., of counsel), for intervenor.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

B.N.E. Swedbank, S.A. v. Banker (District Court, S.D. New York 1992)
Honan v. Pinney, Payne, Valenten, Etc., No. 31 17 52 (Feb. 25, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Mac's Car City, Inc. v. Diloreto, No. Cv 91-0446673s (Apr. 22, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
Johnson v. Olcese, No. 052221 (Oct. 2, 1991) (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)
Klein v. Willocks, No. Cv90 0271115 S (Dec. 2, 1991) (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)
McCutcheon & Burr, Inc. v. Berman (Conn. 1991)
(PC) Struggs v. Pfeiffer (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
(PC) Coleman v. Lopez (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc. v. Heath (District Court, D. Kansas 2020)
Result Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Ferruzzi Trading USA Inc. (2d Cir. 1995)
J. P. Castagna, Inc. v. Castagna, No. Cv920523960 (Apr. 7, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
Shawmut Bank of Rhode Island v. Costello (R.I. 1994)
Banque Nordeurope S.A. v. Pravin Banker (2d Cir. 1992)
Bristol Shop. Plaza v. Vigilant Clean., No. Cv-87-0338958s (Sep. 1, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
Cato v. Cato (Conn. App. Ct. 1992)
Burritt Interfinan. Bancorp. v. Genvest, No. 099178 (Mar. 27, 1991) (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)
Double I Ltd. Partnership v. Plan & Zoning Commission (Conn. 1991)
TIE Communications, Inc. v. Kopp (Conn. 1991)
Sweet v. Sumnerbrook Mill Development Corp. (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PRATT, Circuit Judge:

John F. Di Giovanni and the State of Connecticut have petitioned for rehearing of our decision in this appeal filed on March 9, 1990. 898 F.2d 852. The petitions are granted only insofar as we amend our prior opinion to hold that, except for the attachment in the present case and those attachments filed on or before March 9, 1990, the constitutionality of which was challenged in a lawsuit filed prior to March 9,1990 and still pending on that date, our declaration of the unconstitutionality of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-278e(a)(l) shall have prospective effect only, i.e., shall be applicable only to attachments filed after March 9,1990. The petitions are denied in all other respects.

In its petition, the State of Connecticut suggests that our decision is contrary to McCahey v. L.P. Investors, 774 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1985), a case not originally cited to us by any of the briefs of any party. While there is passing dictum in McCahey that might be interpreted as inconsistent with the panel majority’s opinion, the point was not extensively considered there and we do not view McCahey’s holding as conflicting with our own.

The state also suggests that it was not given sufficient opportunity to intervene under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). Although the district court failed to notify the state of its right to intervene, we afforded it that opportunity on appeal. The state accepted the invitation, fully briefed the constitutional issues for us, and in doing so made no claim that it wished to reopen the trial *18record to present additional evidence. We are satisfied that its interests have been adequately protected.

Finally, in order to avoid ambiguity, the following references in the slip opinion to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-278e will be expanded in the final opinion to read § 52-278e(a)(l): page 2197, line 5; page 2202, line 12; page 2205, line 30; and page 2206, line 5.**

So ordered.

Editor's Note: Changes have been incorporated into the decision published at 898 F.2d 852.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.