Appendix — Lipko v. Christie
Supreme Court brief2002
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
upreme
FILED
02 $28 Aue 17 2002
No. OFFICE OF THE CLERK
|
In The
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
In Re A. LIPKO JR.
V.
M. CHRISTIE, E. LIPKO
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit
APPENDIX TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI
A. LIPKO JR.
P.O. BOX 536
NEW HAVEN, CT 06503
(NO PHONE)
APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Ce I ook scsi cis sa ncidceverccsns 2
Court of Probate Proposed Distributions...................3
Transcript, Judge Rush, 4/8/96...... uae ocabeiwduaad 4-6
Transcript, Judge Curran, 5/1/97....................608. 7-11
Appellate Court Denial, 12/10/97.......... occ cece 12
Partial Judgment Lien-Hdn.Prop.-M. Christie........ 13,14
Partial Judgment Lien-Hdn.Prop.-Eleanor Lipko......15,16
Partial Judgment Lien-Hdn.Prop.-A. Lipko Jr........... 17,18
Superior Court Milford-Judgment Lien,5/26/00.......19,20
Court of Probate-Notice of Hearing, 12/06/2000...... ....21
Milford Ct.-Motion to Open and Set Aside Jdgmt....22,23
A.C. 22365 — Jurisdiction Notice, 3/13/02..................24
Mfd.Ct. Not. Lis Pendens-Mfd.Prop.-M.C. 8/28/01..25,26
Mfd.Ct.Not. Lis Pendens-Mfd.Prop.-E.L., 8/28/01..27,28
Supreme Court of U.S.accepted Writ of Certiorari........ 29
Appellate Court Order: Pay Monetary Sanctions.......... 30
U.S. District Court Orde1, Dnd. TRO, 5/9/02......... 31-34
2™ Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Dnd. 6/13/02...........35
Superior Court Order, Skolnick, J.,dnd,08/08/96............ 36
Atty. Gonillo’s Response to Grievance Complaint....37-38
A.C. 22365, Appellate Court Dismissal, 2/20/02............ 39
A.C. 22365, Plaint. Mot. Per.File Late Brief, 2/4/02..40-41
A.C. 22365, Plaint. Mot.Dismiss App.Mon. Sanc......42-45
Letter from State of CT.Chief Attorney’s Office ........... 46
Commmncticurt State SHatutes..............0...ss00.ssscessesesesosanenes 47-49
Superior Ct, Curran, J., Memorandum of Decision....50-51
Superior Ct, App. Injunction/Summons/Complaint....52-54
CT. Supreme Court Petition for Cert. DND, 12/18/96.....55
Mfd.Ct., Not.Entry of Judgment-E.L., 4/23/02.......... 56-57
Mfd. Ct., Not. Entry of Judgment-M.C., 4/23/02....... 58-59
Constitutional Provisions Involved.....................::cccecee 60
APPENDIX
STATE OF CONNECTICUT Recorded:
COURT OF PROBATE _ Page: 1
DECREE RE: ADMINISTRATION ;
AND DISTRIBUTION (pc-262)
Court of Probate, District of Milford
District Number 084
In the matter of : Andrew Lipko 93-0129
Date of Administration Account: 12/8/94
At a Court of Probate held at the place and time of hearing
set by the Court together with any continuances thereof, as of
record appears, on the fiduciary’s application for allowance
of the administration account indicated above, ascertainment
of heirs and distributees, and an order of distribution.
PRESENT: Hon. Bernard F. Joy, Judge
After due hearing THE COURT FINDS THAT:
Notice was given in accordance with the order of notice
previously given. ‘
All succession taxes due to the State of Connecticut have
been paid.
The distributees of the rest, residue and remainder of said
estate are as set forth.in the schedule of proposed distribution
in said account.
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED AND DECREED that:
Said account is allowed and approved.
aaa
Any unpaid bequests or legacies shall be paid over to those
legally entitled thereto.
| The rest, residue and remainder of said estate be distributed,
transferred and paid over to and among the distributees or
their fiduciaries by the fiduciary of the estate in accordance
with the provisions of the Will, and Codicil(s) if any, of said
deceased.
It is further ORDERED AND DECREED that said fiduciary
make due return of compliance with this Order.
Dated at Milford, CT, this 14" day of August, 1995.
s: Bernard F. Joy,
Bernard F. Joy, Judge
vane wdedtrient
2
APPENDIX
urt of Probate, District of Milfor Distric 084
ESTATE OF:
Andrew Lipko
FORM BEING CONTINUED
Decedent’s Estate Administration Accoun
PROPOSED DISTRIBUTIONS:
Cash on Hand for Distribution $75,500.00
Funds due from Andrew Lipko, Jr. for Fuel
Oil adjustment @ closing 478.50
Personal Effects — taken by Andrew Lipko Jr.
To be deducted from his distributive
share of the estate __1,000.00
Distributions to be based on a total of $76,978.50
Distributions as follows:
To: St. John’s Baptist Church Sp. Bequest $ 500.00
To: Margaret Christie Cash 25,492.83
To: Eleanor Lipko — Cash* 25,492.83
To: Andrew Lipko, Jr. — Cash 25,492.84
Less Fuel Oil adjust. 478.50
Less Pers. Effects 1,000.00 _ 24,014.34
Total Cash Distributions $75,500.00
*NOTE: The amount passing to Eleanor Lipko will be
reduced by $4,467.65 as repayment to the City of Milford for
Welfare Benefits Received. The net amount passing to
Eleanor is $21,025.18.
es)
APPENDIX
DOCKET NUMBER: CV-95-0049467-S
KEAEKEEKEAEKEHEE E KHEEKKEEKKAEKEK EK KK *
LIPKO, ANDREW JR. * * SUPERIOR COURT
. * JUDICIAL DISTRICT
V. ” *OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
° * AT MILFORD
LIPKO, ANDREW SR.* °
EST ET AL ” * APRIL 8, 1996
KeEAKKKKEHEE EE EK KE KEEKKKEHEKHEKEEK EK K€
DOCKET NUMBER: CV-96-0053297-S
KeKKKKKEHK KE KK * KKEEKKKKKKEKKK KK K *
CHRISTIE, M. ET AL* * SUPERIOR COURT
" * JUDICIAL DISTRICT
V. " *OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
? * AT MILFORD
LIPKO, ANDREW JR.* * APRIL 8, 1996
KEKKEKKEEKEK EE * KEEKKKKKKKK KK KK
A COMBINED HEARING BEFORE:
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM B. RUSH, JUDGE
APPEARANCES: :
CHRISTINE M. GONILLO
Hurwitz & Sagarin, PC
P.O. Box 112
147 North Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
ANDREW LIPKO JR. (PRO SE)
WILLIAM E. PACIGA
COURT RECORDING MONITOR
*This transcript is not certified if photocopied.
4
APPENDIX
16
THE COURT: And absent that then there’s no
reason to issue a temporary injunction on other matters
because Mr. Lipko says he is not going to do them. But I
suppose what we can do if any matter is filed by Mr. Lipko
in this district, in Milford, then the file should be
immediately delivered to me, on the request of either side
and I can take up the situation at that time. Because the
estate has a right to be protected or know what’s going to
happen on a case that’s ended. And if the only reason it isn’t
ended is because I issued some order on the fifteenth of
March and the appeal period has not expired, once that
expired, that’s the end of it as far as I’m concerned. So
technically I’m going to mark the motion for a temporary
injunction off. If anything further is filed in this district then
you can reactivate that request and I'll hear it on an
expedited fashion. But that would not include any action
Mr. Lipko wishes to take with the appellate court ... .
18
THE COURT. ... complaint, the underlying complaint. Now
assuming that Mr. Lipko does nothing. What...when will the
estate be concluded?
MS. GONILLO: I really don’t want to close that, have Mrs.
Christie do the affidavit of closing until such time as Mr.
Lipko decides whether he is going to file an appeal to your ...
™ — >
PP
$
%
;
:
DOCKET NUMBERS: CV-95-0049467-S
CV-95-0053297-S
KEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKKEEEKEK KHEKKKKRKEKEKAKERE EE &
APPEARANCES * * SUPERIOR COURT
CHRISTINE M. GONILLO * * JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Hurwitz & Sagarin * * ANSONIA/MILFORD
P.O. Box 112 * * AT MILFORD
Milford, CT 06460 . 9
*
*
ANDREW LIPKO JR. * * APRIL 8, 1996 -
KKKHKKHEHKKEKEKEKKEKEKEKEKEK KKEKKEKKEKRREEKREEK
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that, to the best of my ability, the foregoing
is a true and correct transcript of the tape of the proceedings
heard before The Honorable William B. Rush, Judge, in
Superior Court, Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford, at 14
West River Street, Milford, Connecticut.
S: William E. Paci
William E. Paciga
COURT RECORDING MONITOR
*This certificate does not apply to photocopies.
ION
APPENDIX
CV96 0053297 : SUPERIOR COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE : J.D. ANSONIA/MILFORD
VS. : AT MILFORD
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. : MAY 1, 1997
BEFORE:
HON. HUGH CURRAN, REFEREE AT MILFORD
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CHRISTINE GONILLO, ESQUIRE
FOR THE DEFENDANT: PRO SE
Patricia Gargiulo
Court Monitor
I~
(Attorney Gonillo questioning Mrs. Christie)
P.56 Q. And the estate has remained open during this
litigation, correct? A. Correct.
Q. Has that caused you to pay for accountant fees due to the
estate still being opened? A. Yes, because we have to
file federal and state income taxes for the four years that
it’s been open.
Q. Now the first year you would have paid those anyway.
A. M-hm.
Q. But is it your claim that because of Mr. Lipko’s litigation
you were forced to keep this estate open and forced to
file further tax returns? A. Yes.
Q. Now, are you aware of the amount of money being
charged to you by the accountant? A. I —
Q. For filing of these tax returns. A. I filed two times after
the first year, two times and the first accountant bill was
$318. The second was I haven’t received yet. ...
P. 57. Q. And do you recall whether you had asked the
accountant for a bill for what his fees will be for the next two
tax returns he has to file? A. Yes.
Q. And what’s your understanding of what the bill will be?
A. I haven’t seen the bill yet. It just arrived in the last
day or so in your office.
Q. Okay. I want to show you a document and I want to ask
you if you can identify this. A. Yes, this is a copy of the
_ bill | received from the accountants for the tax year ‘93
to 94. It must be 94 to ’95. ’93 to 94 is the first one.
This is the bill for the next tax year ’95 to ’96 and that’s -
for $300. And the estimated bill the last tax year ’96 to
’97 looks like it’s estimated to be another $300. Plus the
Connecticut service tax of $36.
MS. GONILLO: Let the record reflect I’m showing this
document to Mr. Lipko.
8
THE COURT: And the purpose of this is to show the
additional expenditures that the estate has incurred-because it
has remained open all this time.
MS. GONILLO: And it does not include the first-year.
THE COURT: May be marked as a full exhibit.
CLERK: 19.
(PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 19: Accountant bills}
Q. And Mrs. Christie you’ve had to expend — withdrawn.
The estate has had to expend sums-ef meney-in
defending litigation brought by Mr. Lipko. A. Yes.
P. 58. Q. Do you have a general idea of what the
approximate amount of that sum is? A. Close to
$40,000.
Q. And your Honor, I have in my hand an affidavit in
support of attorney fees. Let the record reflect I am
going to have Mr. Lipko look at the original.
THE COURT: May be marked.
CLERK: 20.
(PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 20: ATTORNEY FEES
AFFIDAVIT)
Q. Mrs. Christie, I’m going to show you a copy-ef-
been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 20 and ask you to
review it with me. The first exhibit consists of a bill for
work that the firm did from August 24, 92 to January 31,
’95, correct? A. Yes.
Q. This includes the probate estate work, right? A. Yes.
Q. It includes things that was done before the probate —
MR. LIPKO: I’m going to object. If counsel is going to ask
a question, let her ask the question.
THE COURT: I agree. Sustained.
Q. Now, could you please read into the record now that this
is a full exhibit, what the total time value on the second
page for all of that service was. A. Fhe-total value was
$26,128.30. ...
INO
P. 64. Q. That afternoon you went to the Probate Court to
ask that Probate Court approve the fees coming out of the
estate to pay for this appeal? A. Yes. ...
Q. When’s the next time you came down? A. August 14,
1995, the Probate Court hearing the final accounting.
My brother did not appear but the final accounting was
done that day.
Q. And that was the day we were able to go forward and get
the final accounting approved. A. Yes.
Q. And when was the next time you came down, Mrs.
Christie? A. March 11, 1996.
Q. What was that for? A. That was Superior Court also
and that was our motion for temporary injunction and his
appeal from the Appellate Court.
Q. Okay. And the next time you came down? A. March
25, 1996 in the Superior Court on the motion for
temporary injunction and his motion to reopen the
appeal.
Q. Was that March or May of ’95? ...
CASE NO. CV96 0053297 * SUPERIOR COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE *J.D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
VS. * AT MILFORD
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. * MAY I, 1997
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
correct transcript of the above-entitled case, heard before the
Hon. Hugh Curran, Referee, at the Superior Court, Judicial
District of Ansonia/Milford at Milford, Connecticut on the
1“ day of May, 1997.
Dated at Milford, Connecticut on this the 23™ day of
September, 1997.
s: Patricia Gargiulo
Patricia Gargiulo
Court Monitor
APPENDIX
No. A.C. 17591
M. CHRISTIEET AL. : APPELLATE COURT
V. . : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. : DECEMBER 10, 1997
ORDER
THE MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS’, FILED
OCTOBER 6 1997, TO DISMISS APPEAL,
ORDERED denied as to any issues relating to
equitable relief; granted as to any claims relating to damages.
BY THE COURT,
s: Michele T. Angers
Michele T. Angers, Esq.
Deputy Chief Clerk
NOTICE SENT: 12/12/97
HURWITZ & SAGARIN, P.C.
ANDREW LIPKO, JR., pro se
TOPAC
er
APPENDIX
PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT LIEN
Hamden property
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT
MARGARET CHRISTIE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF ANDREW LIPKO, SR.
of the Town of Plainfield, County of Washington and State
of Vermont (“Assignor’), for the sum of one dollar and other
valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, assigned,
transferred and set over, and by thege presents does grant,
bargain, sell assign, transfer and set over unto
MARGARET CHRISTIE, INDIVIDUALLY of the Town of
Plainfield, County of Washington and State of Vermont
(“Assignee”).
The sum of TWENTY ONE THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED NINETY SIX AND 23/100 ($21,896.23) of and
from that certain Judgment Lien dated May 26, 2000 and
recorded June 8, 2000 in Volume 1953 at Page 059 of the
Hamden Land Records, to which reference may be had for a
more particular description of said Judgment Lien and of the
land therein described, together with the debt and obligation
therein described, and the money due or to become due
thereon with the interest, more particularly judgment in the
sum of $78,556.56 plus costs of $538.30.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said
Assignee, its heirs and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has hereunto set its
hand and seal this 12 day of December, 2000.
13
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of
s: Joanne Brickey s: Margaret Christie
Margaret Christie, Executrix of the
Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr.
s: Mary M. Baker
STATE OF VERMONT
SS:
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Personally appeared Margaret Christie, Executrix of the
Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr., signor and sealer of the
foregoing Instrument, and acknowledged the same to be her
free act and deed before me.
s: Mary M. Baker
Notary Public/Commissioner of Superior Court
Received for record FEB 8 2001
At 9:34 A.M. at Hamden, CT
s: Vera A Morrison
Hamden Town Clerk VL 2022. PG 046
APPENDIX
PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT LIEN
Hamden property
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT
MARGARET CHRISTIE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF ANDREW LIPKO, SR.
of the Town of Plainfield, County of Washington and State
of Vermont (“Assignor’”), for the sum of one dollar and other
valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, assigned,
transferred and set over, and by these presents does grant,
bargain, sell assign, transfer and set over unto
ELEANOR LIPKO of Town of Fort Plain, County of
Montgomery and State of New York (“Assignee”),
The sum of TWENTYONE THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED NINETY SIX AND 24/100 ($21,896.24) of
and from that certain Judgment Lien dated May 26, 2000 and
recorded June 8, 2000 in Volume 1953 at Page 059 of the
Hamden Land Records, to which reference may be had for a
more particular description of said Judgment Lien and of the
land therein described, together with the debt and obligation
therein described, and the money due or to become due
thereon with the interest, more particularly judgment in the
sum of $78,556.56 plus costs of $538.30.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said
Assignee, its heirs and assigns forever.
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has hereunto set its
hand and seal this 12 day of December, 2000.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of
s: Joanne Brickey s: Margaret Christi
Margaret Christie, Executrix of the
Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr.
s: Mary M. Baker
STATE OF VERMONT
SS:
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Personally appeared Margaret Christie, Executrix of the
Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr., signer and sealer of the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the same to be her
free act and deed before me.
S: Mary M. Baker
7 Notary Public/Commissioner of Superior Court
oe
Received for record FEB 8 2001
At 9:32 A.M. at Hamden, Ct.
s: Vera A. Morrison
Hamden Town Clerk VI 2022 PG045
APPENDIX
PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT LIEN
Hamden Property
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT
MARGARET CHRISTIE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF ANDREW LIPKO, SR. Of the Town of Plainfield,
County of Washington and State.of Vermont (“Assignor’),
for the sum of one dollar and other valuable consideration,
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted,
bargained, sold, assigned, transferred and set over, and by
these presents does grant, bargain, sell assign, transfer and
set over unto
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. of the Town of Hamden, County of
New Haven and State of Connecticut (“Assignee’’).
The sum of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED TWO AND 39/100 ($35,305,302.39) of and
from that certain Judgment Lien dated May 26, 2000 and
recorded June 8, 2000 in Volume 1953 at Page 059 of the
Hamden Land Records, to which reference may be had for a
more particular description of said Judgment Lien and of the
land therein described, together with the debt and obligation
therein described, and the money due or to become due
thereon with the interest; more particularly judgment in the
sum of $78,556.56 plus costs of $538.30.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said
Assignee, its heirs and assigns forever.
In witness whereof, the Assignor has hereunto set its hand
and seal this 12 day of December, 2000.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of
s: Joanna Brickey s: Margaret Christie
Margaret Christie, Executrix of
The Estate of Andrew Lipko Sr.
s: Mary M. Baker
17
——— Ss ee Te eee ee ee ae ee
STATE OF VERMONT
SS:
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON -
Personally appeared Margaret Christie, Executrix of the
Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr., signer and sealer of the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the same to be her
free act and deed before me.
s: Mary M. Baker
Notary Public/Commissioner of
Superior Court
Received for record Feb 8 2001
At 9:30 AM at Hamden, CT. VI. 2022 PG 044
S: Vera A. Morrison
Hamden Town Clerk
APPENDIX
Docket No. CV96 0053297 S -: SUPERIOR COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE ET AL : J.D. OF ANSONTA/
VS. : MILFORD
: AT MILFORD
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. : MAY 26, 2000
JUDGMENT LIEN
This is to certify that MARGARET CHRISTIE ET
AL., of Plainfield Vermont, on May 26, 2000, in the
Superior Court within and for the Judicial District of
ANSONIA/MILFORD, at MILFORD, did obtain a judgment
in its favor, against ANDREW LIPKO, JR, whose last-
known address is 110 Blue Hills Avenue, Hamden
Connecticut, P.O. Box 536, New Haven, Connecticut. The
original amount of said judgment was $78,557.56 damages,
plus costs of suit, which judgment remains wholly
unsatisfied, and to secure said unsatisfied sums, and the
lawful interest thereon, a judgment lien in favor of said
MARGARET CHRISTIE ET AL is hereby placed upon the
following-described real estate of the said ANDREW
LIPKO, JR. situated in the Town of HAMDEN, County of
New Haven and State of Connecticut. a.
ALL THAT CERTAIN PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND,
WITH THE BUILDINGS AND ALL OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, SITUATED IN THE Town
of Hamden, County of New Haven and State of Connecticut,
known as 110 Blue Hills Avenue, being Lot #27 on the map
entitled, “Park Acres, Hamden, Conn., Developed by Pine
Rock Homes, Incorporated. Hamden, Conn., Scale 1 inch
equals 100 feet, Nov. 20, 1950”. Frederick C. Hahn,
Surveyor, on file in the Hamden Town Clerk’s Office, said
Lot being bounded
19
SOUTHEAST by Blue Hills Avenue, 75 feet.
EAST by the junction of Blue Hills Avenue and Baldwin
Road, by a curved line, 31.42 feet;
NORTHEAST by Baldwin Road, 90.63 feet.
NORTHWEST by Lot #26 on said map, 98.92 feet;
SOUTHWEST by Lot #28 on said map, 118.39 feet.
Said premises are subject to certain restrictions contained in
a deed from Pine Rock Homes, Incorporated to Frank
Loraine Kockler and Genevieve H. Kockler dated February
13, 1952, recorded in Volume 314 on Page 8 of the Hamden
Land Records.
Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes S. 52-380a.
—
Dated at MILFORD, Connecticut this 6” day of June, 2000.
s: istine M. Gonill
CHRISTINE M. GONILLO
Cody & Gonillo, LLP
185 North Broad Street
Milford, Connecticut 06460
Tel: (203) 878-7491
Juris. #416476
Received for record Jun 08 2000 VL 1953 PGO59
s: Vera A. Morrison
Hamden Town Clerk
APPENDIX .
STATE OF CONNECTICUT Recorded:
COURT OF PROBATE Page |
NOTICE OF HEARING (PC-130)
REV _.4/85
Court of Probate, District of Milford
District Number 084
Estate of: Andrew Lipko 93-0129
Petitioner: Margaret Christie
Place of Hearing:
Probate Court for the District of Milford
Parsons Office Complex
70 West River Street
Miltord, CT 06460
Date of Order: | 1/27/2000 Hearing Date: 12/06/2000
Time. 12:15 P.M.
UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR
status conference AS PER APPLICATION ON FILE MORE
FULLY APPEARS,
IT IS ORDERED THAT: /
Said application be heard and determined at the Court of
Probate at the date, time, and place indicated above. As a
person who may have an interest in this matter you may
attend the hearing although you are not required to attend.
The court does, however, require the appearance of the
attorney of record or the fiduciary if there is no attorney. If
you want more information in advance of the hearing, please
contact either the petitioner or the attorney, or make
arrangements to visit the court prior to the hearing to review
the docuinents which are on file.
s:
Temp. Ass’t. Clerk
APPENDIX
CV-96-0053297-S : SUPERIOR COURT
M. CHRISTIE : J.D. OF ANSONTA/MILFORD
V. : AT MILFORD
A. LIPKO : JULY 20, 2001
MOTION TO OP E
TATEMENT A DIN
This Beneficiary to the Estate of A. Lipko Sr.
appealed three decisions of the Probate Court, because of
Malfeasance in the Estate: Succession Tax, filed 7 months.
late; taxes, penalties and interest of $22,208.11; the house
was sold before the inventory was in the Probate Court, lack
of trust in the Executrix concerning the bank accounts, etc;
and the lead attorney, Henry Maretz was removed by Probate
Judge B. Joy, who, himself, resigned when the permanent
injunction was issued against this Beneficiary. He had one
year left to serve. The Probate Judge had refused to have the
bank accounts verified, where there was legitimate cause for
concern. The first appeal was dismissed in the Superior
Court, and the third appeal was never returned to Superior
Court. The second appeal, A.C. 15095, went up to the
Appellate Court, and was dismissed on 10/25/95, on requesst
of C. Gonillo. It was dismissed in error, because C. Gonillo
filed her Motion to Dismiss after the 10-day period, see letter
from Chief Clerk Drumm. Motion to Reopen Appeal, A.C.
15989, filed with Superior Court on 4/15/96, and C. Gonillo
offered false evidence against this Beneficiary, was
dismissed on 10/30/96. Petition for Certification filed with
the... .
... court of improper and illegal venue, and the
action was barred by statute.
~ THE DEFENDANT
s: A. Lipko
a i
A. Lipko
ORDER
The foregoing “Motion to Open and Set Aside the
Judgment”, having been heard by this Court, is hereby
ORDERED: GRANTED/DENIED.
BY THE COURT
Judge/Clerk
CERTIFICATION
[ hereby certify that the foregoing has been mailed,
by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 4" day of August,
2001, to Attorney Christine Gonillo, Cody & Gonillo, 185 N.
Broad St., Milford, CT 06460.
THE DEFENDANT
s: A. Lipko
A. Lipko
P.O. Box 536
New Haven, CT 06503
APPENDIX
AC. 22365 : APPELLATE COURT
M. CHRISTIE ET AL. : STATE OF CONNECTICUT
V.
A. LIPKO JR. : MARCH 13, 2002
JURISDICTION
1. Please be advised that this Case is under the
subject matter and in personam jurisdiction under the Federal
Court’s jurisdiction.
THE APPELLANT
s: A. Lipko Jr.
A. Lipko Jr.
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was
mailed, postage prepaid, to C. Gonillo, Esq., Cody &
Gonillo, 185 N. Broad St., Milford, CT, this 13" day of
March, 2002.
THE APPELLANT
s: A. Lipko Jr.
A. Lipko Jr.
P.O Box 536
New Haven, CT 06503
24
APPENDIX -
RETURNDATE:SEPTEMBER25,2001:SUPERIORCOURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE ‘J.D. OF ANSONIA/
MILFORD :
VS. ‘AT MILFORD ;
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. :AUGUSF 28, 2001 .
NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS — MILFORD PROPERTY
In accordance with Connecticut General Statutes Sec.
52-325, notice is hereby given of the pendency of a-civil
action between the above named parties, which action is
brought claiming a judgment of foreclosure by a writ dated
August 28, 2001, and made returnable to the Superior Court
for the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford at Milford on the
4" Tuesday of September, 2001. In said action, the above
named plaintiff claims an interest in and to the real_ property
which is subject to the civil action above, which real property
is bounded and described as follows: ;
ALL THAT CERTAIN PIECE OR PARCEL OF
LAND, with the buildings thereon, situated 1 of
Milford, County of New Haven and State of Connecticut,
designated as Lot No. 17, as shown on Map of Pr of
Charles and William Honek, dated July 17, 1947, revi
November 24, 1947, made by George E. Thompsen; and on
file in the Milford Town Clerk’s Office, together with a piece
of land lying to the east thereof, and being further- beunded
and described as follows:
WEST: On Page Street, 48.17 feet, by a curved line; |
NORTHWEST: On other land now or formerly of Charles
and William Honek, 19.13 feet;
NORTHEAST: On land now or formerly of Patsy and
Beatrice Verrilli, 148.84 feet, more or less;
SOUTHEAST: On land now or formerly of John and Anna
Ribon, 62.04 feet;
SOUTHWEST: On Lot No. 16, as shown on said map, and
a passway, each in part, in all, 129.88 feet, more or less.
Together with a right of way 13 feet in width extending to
Holly Street, as shown on said map.
Said premises being known as 31 Page Street.
Dated at Milford, Connecticut this 28" day of August, 2001.
THE PLAINTIFF
MARGARET CHRISTIE
BY s: Christine M, Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
Cody & Gonillo, LLP
185 North Broad St.
Miltord, CT 06460
(203) 878-7491
Juris No. 416476
Received for record AUG 29 2001
At 3:53:51 P.M. and recorded by me.
s: Alan H, Jepson
Milford City Clerk VOL 2503 PG 705
APPENDIX
RETURN DATE: SEP 25, 2001 : SUPERIOR COURT
ELEANOR LIPKO - J.D. ANSONTA/
VS. : MILFORD
ANDREW LIPKO, JR - AT MILFORD
: AUGUSF 28, 2001
NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS — MILFORD PROPERTY
In accordance with Connecticut General Statutes Sec.
52-325, notice is hereby given of the pendancy of a civil
action between the above named parties, which action is
brought claiming a judgment of foreclosure by- a writ-dated
August 28, 2001, and made returnable to the Supenor Court
for the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford-at-Milford-on the
4* Tuesday of September, 2001. In said action, the above
named plaintiff claims an interest in and to the real praperty
which is subject to the civil action above, which real
property is bounded and described as follows:
ALL THAT CERTAIN PIECE OR PARCEL OF
LAND, with the buildings thereon, situated in-the-City of
Milford, County of New Haven and State of Connecticut,
designated as Lot No. 17, as shown on Map ef Property of
‘Charles and William Honek, dated July 17, 1947, revised
November 24, 1947, made by George E. Thompsen,
file in the Milford Town Clerk’s Office, together with
piece of land lying to the east thereof, and being _—
bounded and described as follows:
WEST: On Page Street, 48.17 feet, by sieiiliade
NORTHWEST: On other land now or formerly of Charles
and William Honek, 19.13 feet;
NORTHEAST: On land now or formerly of Patsy and
Beatrice Verrilli, 148.84 feet, more or less;
SOUTHEAST: On land now or formerly of John and Anna
Ribon, 62.04 feet;
SOUTHWEST: On Lot No. 16, as shown on said map, and a
passway, each in part, in all, 129.88 feet, more or less.
ie ols 5 a te ne a at
Holly Street, as shown on said map.
Said premises being known as 31 Page Street.
Dated at Milford, Connecticut this 28" day of
August, 2001.
THE PLAINTIFF
ELEANOR LIPKO
BY s: Christine M. Gonillo
Cody & Gonillo, LLP
185 North Broad St.
Milford, CT 06460
_ (203) 878-7491
Juris No. 416476
Together with a right of way 13 feet in width extending io
Received for record AUG 29 2001
At 3:53:23 P.M. and recorded by me.
s: Alan H. Jepson VOL 2503 PG 704
APPENDIX
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20543
November 30, 2000
Mr. Andrew Lipko
P.O. Box 536
New Haven, CT 06503
Re: Andrew Lipko, Jr. v. Margaret Christie
No. 00-873
Dear Mr. Lipko:
The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above
entitled case was filed July 5, 2000 and placed on the docket
November 29, 2000 as No. 00-873.
Forms are enclosed for notifying opposing counsel
that the case was docketed.
Sincerely,
William K. Suter, Clerk
by s: Gail B Johnson
Gail B. Johnson
Assistant
Enclosures
APPENDIX
APPELLATE COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
AC22365
MARGARET CHRISTIE ET AL.
V.
ANDREW LIPKO
MARCH 20, 2002
ORDER
THE MOTION OF THE NAMED PLAINTIFF,
FILED JANUARY 7, 2002, FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS, HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO THE
_ COURT, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT f§ TO
PAY MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,485.00 TO ATTORNEY CHRISTINE M. GONH,LO,
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF, ON OR BEFORE
APRIL 19, 2002.
: BY THE COYRT,
FLYNN, J., IS RECUSED.
S: Cynthia M. Gwerek _
ASSISTANT CLERK-APPELLATE
NOTICE SENT: 3/21/02 :
CHRISTINE M. GONILLO
ANDREW LIPKO, JR., PRO SE
HON. KAREN NASH SEQUINO
CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT, ANSONIA/MILFORD,
CV96 053297S
628/012707
BJM
APPENDIX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
A. LIPKO JR. .
V. : Civ. Action No.
M. CHRISTIE : 3:02 CV 479 (SRU)
ORDER
A.Lipko Jr. (“Lipko”) has moved for entry of a
temporary restraining order to prevent the apparently
imminent foreclosure of his home to satisfy a state court
judgment. Specifically, Lipko seeks to restrain the
defendant, Margaret Christie (“Christie”), who-has seeured a
judgment against Lipko in the underlying action, as well as
numerous third parties including the “State of € icut,
Supreme, Appellate, Superior Court Jurist, the Agents of
State,” and Christie’s lawyer in the underlying action, until
the court can determine the merits of this action.
A party seeking a temporary restraining erder-
(“TRO”) must show that he will suffer irreparable harm if the
order is not granted and either (1) a likelihood of on
the merits, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the
merits to make them a fair ground for litigation-and a-balance
of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. Warner-Lambert
Co. v. Northside Development Corp., 86-F:343, 6 (2d Cir.
1996); Jackson Dairy, Inc. V. H.P. Hood & Sons, 596 F.2d
70, 72 (2d Cir. 1979). The purpose of a TRO is“ “te preserve
- an existing situation in statu quo’ until the movant’s
forthcoming application for a preliminary inyunetion-may be
fully considered.” Wamner Bros. Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading,
Inc., 877 F.2d 1120, 1125 (2d Cir. 1989) (queting Pan-
American World Air. V. Flight Eng. Intern. Assoc., 306 F.2d
840, 842 (2d Cir. 1962)).
Assuming that the imminent foreclosure of Lipko’s
home would constitute irreparable harm, he is, nonetheless,
not entitled to the requested TRO because he has failed to
demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits.
Specifically, Lipko is unlikely to succeed on the merits
because this court, in all likelihood, lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the claims in Lipko’s Complaint.
In Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. 263 U.S. 413, 415-16
(1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 482 (1983), the Supreme Court held
that the federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
to review state court judgments. Thus, under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, the federal district cannot entertain a
collateral attack on a state court judgment “cloak[ed] ... as a
[section] 1983 action.” Davidson v. Garry, 956 F. Supp. 265,
269 (E.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd, 112 F.3d 503 (2d Cir. 1997).
Section 1983 may not be used as a substitute for the right of
appeal in the state courts. See Tonti v. Petropoulous, 656
F.2d 212, 216 (6" Cir. 1981); McArthur v, Bell, 788 F. Supp.
706, 709 (E.D.N.Y. 1992); Noyce v. City of Iola, Kansas,
No. 89-4092-R, 1990 WL 41399 (D. Kan. Mar. 29, 1990)
(citing cases).
Lipko’s claims are, in all likelihood, barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. All of the alleged facts supporting
his claims arise in the context of the underlying state actions.
-(See Compl. P. 4.) Moreover, each of the claimed violations
of his federal rights arise out of, and are indistinct from, the
underlying judgment. See Johnson v. Smithsonian Inst., 189
F.3d 180, 186 (2d Cir. 1999), citing Garry v. Geils, 82 F.3d
1362, 1365 (7" Cir. 1996)(“[T]he fundamental and
appropriate question to ask is whether the injury alleged by
the federal plaintiff resulted from the state court judgment
‘tself or is distinct from that judgment.”). For example,
Lipko alleges that he was denied his “right to [a]
determination [of] probable cause before the Trial and that
the information which formed the basis of the Trial and
prosecution was supplied by the state agent. ... with the
knowledge that it was false.” (Compl. P. 4.) He also frames
his injury as his having been “falsely prosecuted.” (Id.) In
addition, Lipko asserts that the foreclosure action “deprived
him of his property without due process,” and he challenges
“the State Statute as procedurally defective under the
Fourteenth Amendment.” (Id.) Finally, Lipko asks the court,
inter alia, to “[v]Jacate all the judgment liens on the two
properties; and vacate the order of the Appellate Court for a
hearing on damages ...” and that the “Defendants be enjoined
... from issuing any execution on the alleged judgment or
from taking any steps to enforce the alleged judgment.” (Id.
P. 5.) Thus, Lipko is not likely to succeed on the merits of
his claims because, in all likelihood, this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over them by operation of the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine.’ See. e.g., Beckford v. Citibank N.A., No.
00 Civ. 205, 2000 WL 1585684 at *2-4 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 24,
2000)(barring plaintiff's claim that defendants violated
federal and state law during foreclosure proceedings); Drew
v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., No. 95 Civ. 3133, 1998 WL
430549 at *6(S.D.N.Y. July 30, 1998) (barring pro se
plaintiff's claims under Sec. 1983 that foreclosure judgment
violated plaintiffs due process and equal protection rights
and was procured by fraud); Millman v. PNC Bank, No 97
Civ. 3097 (HB), 1998 WL 635548 (S.D.N.Y. Sept 16, 1998)
(dismissing common law fraud and bad faith claims attacking
process used by defendants to obtain deficiency judgment
entered in state court); Si nv nam nty Natl.
' The court will not dismiss this action at this time, sua sponte, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because the pro se plaintiff has not yct had an
opportunity to address this issue, either in reply to an opposition to the
motion for a TRO (because no opposition has been filed), or to an order
to show cause issued by the court. Lipko will, therefore, have an
opportunity to address the jurisdictional issue by responding to the
defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Bank of Carmel, 20 F. Supp. 2d 630 (barring complaint that
alleged state foreclosure judgment-was-procured-by- and
conspiracy in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. See. 1961 et
seq.)(S.D.N.Y. 1998).
Finally, to the extent Lipko’s 0 enero
liberally be construed as stating some viable federal cause of
action other than a Section 1983 claim, his-clai also
likely be barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec.
2283, since he essentially seeks a “stay fef- ings in []
State cour). ...” See Jos. L. Mu lle, Inc. v. Central Iron
Mfg. Co., 328 F. 2d 791, 793 (3™ Cir. 1964)(“To come
within the prohibition of [the Anti-Injunetion-Act} an—
injunction need not be addressed to or directed against a state
court or state officers. Injunctions are han Sey
restrain litigants from prosecuting or going forward with State
proceedings. Moreover, an injunction pee Mey
any other proceeding to enforce a state judgment is forbidden
as well as one against the prosecution eee * to
obtain a judgment.”)(citations omitted).
Accordingly, Lipko’s motion ipo deine, and
accompanying proposed order [docs # 3 & 9] are denied.
Lipko shall, on or before thirty days from the-date i
order, file an opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In his opposition, Lipko should specifically won a
of whether his claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldm
doctrine. Lipko should note that, if the Court his
claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Lipko’s
Complaint will be dismissed and the sacle ooee
It is so ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport this 9" day of May 2002.
s: Stefan R. Underhill United States District Judge
D. Conn.
02-cv-479
Underhill, J.
United States Court of Appeals
For the
SECOND CIRCUIT
At a stated Term of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States
Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
13" day of June, two thousand and two,
Present:
Hon. Roger J. Miner,
Hon. Jose A. Cabranes,
Hon. Rosemary S. Pooler,
Circuit Judges.
—— A. Lipko, SJr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 02-7641
Margaret Christie,
Defendant-Appel
Appellant has filed, pro se, a motion for a temporary
restraining order in his appeal from the district court’s
refusal to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the
sale of real property pursuant to a state court judgment.
Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the motion is
denied, and the appeal is dismissed, because the appeal lacks
an arguable basis in fact or law. See Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U7S-319, 325 (1989); Pillay v. LN.S., 45 F.3d 14 (2d
Cir. 1995).
FOR THE COURT;
Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk
By: s: Arthur Heller
35
APPENDIX
P.O. BOX 210
14 WEST RIVER STREET
MILFORD, CONNECTICUT 06460
DOC NO CV-906-0053297-S
NOTICE {SSUED 08/08/96
PLTF CHRISTIE MARGARET ETAL VS.
DFDT LIPKO, ANDREW JR.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING
ORDER HAS BEEN ENTERED ON THE ABOVE CASE:
116-00 MOTION TO DISMISS FILE DT 06/26/96
DEND - DATE 08/00/96 JUDGE SKOLNICK, J.
ANDREW LIPKO JR.
PO BOX $36
NEW HAVEN, CT
06503
DIRECT ([NQUIRLES TO: CLERKS OFFICE,
JUD. DIST. SUPERIOR COURT
P.O. BOX 210
14 WEST RIVER STREET
MILFORD, CONNECTICUT 06460
36
APPENDIX
Re: Docket No. 98GP16(RNC): Complaint of A.LipRo Jr.
RESPONSE TO GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT FILED BY
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. '
Andrew Lipko, Jr. is a pro se party in several probate related
matters brought since his father passed away in May of 1993.
I have represented Margaret Christie, Executrix of the Estate
of Andrew Lipko, Sr. in much of this litigation. Mr. Lipko
and Mrs. Christie are siblings. Andrew Lipke, Sr. was-+their
father. Mrs. Christie originally hired my former firm, |
Hurwitz & Sagarin, P.C.(which, for a time, became Harris
Beach & Wilcox, LLP but then reverted back to its former
status) for the probate estate work. We also-defended the
various probate motions and appeals Mr. Lipko had filed
when he attempted to remove Ms. Christie as the Executrix.
He criticized practically every official action she took as the
Executrix. For several years, Mr. Lipko filed prebate
motions, followed by probate appeals to the Superior Court,
followed by appeals to the State Appellate Court
certification petitions to the Supreme Court. His motions
included a request for exhumation of his-father’s-bedy for an
autopsy and a request for Ms. Christie to post a $200,000.00
probate bond. He also filed an application for ary
injunction in Superior Court to prevent Ms. Christie from
removing documents from the decedent’s-home. Ad his
litigation was unsuccessful, and it became progressively
repetitive as the years have gone by.
Finally, Ms. Christie authorized the firm to file an
application for temporary and permanent injunction and
complaint for vexatious litigation against Mr. Lipko. A two
day trial of that matter occurred in May of 1997. In August
of that year, Judge Curran issued a Memorandum of
Decision granting a permanent injunctiotr ig Mr.
Lipko from filing any further motions and/or appeals to
further delay the closing of the Estate of Andrew Lipke, Sr.
eee
Judge Curran also found that Ms. Christie had established a ~
claim for vexatious litigation. A copy of Judge Curran’s
Memorandum of Decision is included in Mr. Lipko’s
materials. | attach another copy to this response.
I took the file with me when I left Hurwitz & Sagarin in May
of this year. One of the reasons I agreed to take the case was
that the matter had become so convoluted and complex that
it would be difficult and costly for a new attorney to handle
the matter expeditiously. At that time Mr. Lipko’s appeal of
Judge Curran’s judgment was making its way through the
Appellate Court. By August of this year, the Appellate
Court dismissed that appeal because Mr. Lipko failed to file
an appropriate record. Apparently Mr. Lipko abandoned his
State Appeal when he decided to file a complaint in the
United States District Court. He filed his federal complaint
in the same month the State Appeal was dismissed. The
complaint is another rehashing of all the litigation he has
brought over the last five years. It is, in essence, an appeal
to the District Court of Judge Curran’s State Court decision.
It is a violation of Judge Curran’s injunction. The complaint
bears docket no. 3:98 CV 01730 (AHN). I have filed a
motion to dismiss the federal complaint. That motion is
currently pending. The District Court has denied Mr.
Lipko’s motion for default against me for failure to file an
answer. Mr. Lipko has also filed a motion for summary
judgment.
oo
io)
APPENDIX
APPELLATE COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
AC 22365
MARGARET CHRISTIE ET AL.
V.
ANDREW LIPKO, JR.
February 20, 2002
ORDER
THE MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
FILED JANUARY 7, 2002, TO DISMISS APPEAE AND
FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, HAVING BEING
PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED GRANTED AS TO THE PORTION OF THE
MOTION THAT RELATES TO DISMISSAL OF-THE
APPEAL. THE PORTION OF THE MOTION THAT
RELATES TO MONETARY SANCTIONS-WILE BE SET
DOWN FOR HEARING DURING THE SIXTH TERM OF
THE APPELLATE COURT.
BY FHE-COURT,
S: Alan M Gannuscio
ASSISTANT CLERK-APPELLATE
NOTICE SENT: FEBRUARY 21, 2002
CHRISTINE M. GONILLO
ANDREW LIPKO, JR., PRO SE
HON. KAREN NASH SEQUINO
CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT, ANSONIA/MILFORD,
~ CV96 53297
PAC "
er 628/012707
APPENDIX
A.C. 22365 > APPELLATE COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE ET AL.: STATE OF CONN.
VS.
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. : January 4, 2002
MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE LATE BRIEF
AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH
TO FILE BRIEF
The brief of the plaintiff-appellee (“plaintiff”) was
due on January 2, 2002 due to defendant’s-appellant’s
(“defendant’s’”) early filing of his brief. Plaintiff hereby
moves for permission to file her brief late and for an
extension of time within which to do so. Plaintiff seeks an
extension of time within which to file her brief up through
and including forty-five days from the issuance of notice of
the court’s decision on her motion to dismiss appeal and for
monetary sanctions, which 1s also dated January 4, 2002.
F. BRIEF HISTORY OF CASE;
Defendant’s appeal is from the denial of defendant’s
August 20,2001 motion to open or vacate the court’s May
26, 2000 damages judgment in the Estate’s favor against
defendant for vexatious litigation in the sum of $78,556.56
plus costs. Plaintiff as Executrix of the Estate obtained the
damages judgment in the underlying action bearing docket
number CV 96 0053297 S.
Defendant filed its motion to open or vacate (“motion
to open”) one year and three months after the damages
judgment. This is well past the four month period in which
to request that a judgment be opened pursuant to C.G:S. Sec.
52-212a and P.B. Sec. 17-43. The trial court denied the
motion to open on the papers. ...
THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
BY s: Christine M. Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
Cody & Gonillo, LLP #416476
185 N. Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
203-878-749]
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that pursuant to Sec 62-7 the
foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid this 4" day of
January 2002 to:
Andrew Lipko, Jr.
P.O. Box 536
New Haven, Connecticut 06503
Telephone Number unknown
s: Christine M. Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
APPENDIX
A.C. 22365 : APPELLATE COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE ET AL. : STATE OF CONN.
VS.
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. : January 4, 2002
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AND FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS
This is the latest in an eight-year saga of litigation
that a brother has instituted pro se involving his sister who
was the Executrix of probate estate of their father, Andrew
Lipko, Sr. (“Estate”).
Pursuant to P.B. Sec. 85-2 and 85-3, plaintiff
Margaret Christie (“Plaintiff”) hereby moves to dismiss her
brother Andrew Lipko Jr.’s (“Defendant”)’s latest appeal and
for a reasonable attorney’s fee for the filings necessary to
defend this appeal.
Defendant’s appeal is from the trial court’s denial of
Defendant’s August 20, 2001 motion (“Motion”) to open or
vacate the trial court’s May 26, 2000 damages judgment in
the Estate’s favor against Defendant for vexatious litigation
in the sum of $78,556.56 plus costs (“Damages Judgment”)’.
Plaintiff as Executrix of the Estate obtained the Damages
Judgment in the underlying action bearing docket number
CV 96 0053297 S (“Action”).
I
Since Plaintiff received the Damages Judgment as
Executrix of the Estate and Defendant is a one-third
beneficiary of the residual Estate, the Estate had to distribute
a portion of the Damages Judgment to Defendant in his
capacity as a beneficiary, thereby effectively reducing the
Damages Judgment by one-third.
Defendant never appealed the Damages Judgment.
Defendant filed its Motion one year and three months after
the Damages Judgment. Thijs is well past the four ...
Defendant’s Motion is extraordinarily untimely as it
is well past the four month period in which to request that a
judgment be opened pursuant to C.G.S. Sec. 52-212a and
P.B. Sec. 17-43.
C.G.S. Sec 52-212a states in pertinent part as
follows: Sec. 52-212a. Ciyil judgment or decree reopened
or set aside within four months only. ... a civil judgment or
decree rendered in the Superior Court may not be opened or
set aside unless a motion to open or set aside is filed within
four months following the date on which it was rendered or
passed. ...
Practice Book Sec. 17-43 states in pertinent part as
follows: Sec. 17-43. Opening Judgment upon Default or
Nonsuit (a) Any judgment rendered or decree passed upon a
default or nonsuit may be set aside within four months
succeeding the date on which notice was sent ...
Defendant fully participated in the trial that occurred
in May of 1997. It was at that time that the court found that
both an injunction and damages for vexatious litigation were
in order. The Damages Judgment was entered in May of
2000. In the intervening period Defendant had brought
further litigation in state and federal court.
At the hearing in damages en May 26, 2000, Plaintiff
appeared and presented evidence. Defendant failed to appear
although his pro se appearance has been in the file at all
times. The Court sent Notice of the Damages Judgment to
Defendant as an appearing party per Notice datae! May 26,
2000 (SCDE 190.00). Defendant never appealed the
Damages Judgment.
There is no legitimate legal basis to Defendant’s assertion
that the trial court in the underlying Action had no
jurisdiction over him at the time the Damages Judgment was
entered.
Defendant’s assertion that he was immune from
proceedings in the Action is without any legal merit
whatsoever. ...
_.. circumstances here. This Court has dismissed appeals as
frivolous where no good faith argument could be raised on
appeal. See e.g., Glenfeld Mortgage Corp. V. Crowley, 61
Conn. App. 84 2000).
P.B. Sec. 85-2 permits the assessment of attorney’s fees
against pro se parties such as Defendant here, for the filing
of this frivolous appeal.
Defendant’s appeal is pure and simple abuse of the
court system that neither an Injunction Judgment or
Damages Judgment has managed to deter. Defendant’s
assertion that the trial court in the underlying Action had no
jurisdiction over him when the Damages Judgment entered is
pure fantasy lacking any legal foundation whatsoever.
Further, Defendant’s chronic abuse of the legal
process is egregious. He has been unfettered in his constant
barrage of litigation that continues to cost Plaintiff time and
money. Plaintiff has not pursued the foreclosures of the
judgment liens obtained in the underlying Action due to this
appeal of the Damages Judgment obtained in the underlying
Action. Instead Plaintiff is forced to continue to pay counsel
to defend against this baseless appeal.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons stated above Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss and for monetary sanctions should be granted
THE PLAINTIFF
BY s: Christine M. Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
Cody & Gonillo, LLP #416476
185 N. Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
203-878-7491
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that pursuant to P_B. Sec. 62-7, the
foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid this 4" day of
January 2002 to:
Andrew Lipko, Jr
P.O. Box 536
New Haven, CT 06503
Telephone Number unknown
s: Christine M. Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
45
APPENDIX
State of Connecticut
DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
OFFICE OF
THE CHIEF STATE’S ATTORNEY
JOHN M. BAILEY 300 CORPORATE PLACE
CHIEF STATE’S ATTORNEY ROCKY HILL, CT. 06067
PHONE (860) 258-5800
April 8, 1997
Mr. A. Lipko
P.O. Box 536
New Haven, CT. 06503
Re: Your letter Concerning Attorney C_Gonillo
Dear Mr. Lipko
I have reviewed your letter to Chief State’s Attorney
John M. Bailey. I note in your recitation of relevant facts
that you have filed a parallel complaint with the Statewide
Grievance Committee
The Statewide Grievance Committee has historically
investigated all complaints concerning attorney misconduct
That staff routinely forwards all evidence of criminal
conduct to this Office for action. I will, therefore, wait for
the decision by that agency before deciding any course of
action
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me
Sincerely,
s: Julia D. Dewey
Supv. Assistant State’s Attorney
Statewide Prosecution Bureau
c: John M. Bailey
Chief State’s Attorney
JDD:ad
46
APPENDIX
CONNECTICUT STATE STATUTES
Section 52-517. Replevin for property attached. When any
property is held by an officer by virtue of a writ of
attachment, any person other than the defendant having a
general or special property interest therein with a nght to the
immediate possession thereof, and, when the property so
held is claimed by the defendant to be exempt from
execution, the defendant may bring an action of replevin
against the officer alone, or against the plaintiff in the writ of
attachment, or_against both, to recover the property
Section 52-518. Replevin writ, affidavit as to value of goods
and recognizance required. A writ of replevin shall not be
issued: (1) Until the plaintiff, or some other credible person,
subscribes an affidavit annexed to the writ stating the true
and just value of the goods which it is desired to replevy, and
that the affiant believes that the plaintiff is entitled to the
immediate possession of the goods, and (2) until some
person, known to the authority signing the writ to be of
sufficient responsibility, has entered into a recognizance
before him, with at least one sufficient surety, in a sum at
least double the sworn value of the property, conditioned (A)
that the plaintiff shall prosecute his action to effect, (B) for
the payment of any judgment that may be recovered by the
defendant in the action, and (C) for the return of the property
to the defendant and payment to the defendant of damages
sustained by the replevy of the property if the plaintiff fails to
establish his right to its possession. The recognizance shall
be signed by the obligors in the presence of at least one
witness other than the authonty taking the recognizance. A
record of the recognizance shall be entered at the foot of the
writ before the writ is issued, and copies of the process left in
service shall contain the affidavit and the recognizance
|
Im
Section 52-521. Replevin: service, new bond; voiding of
process. (a) The officer who replevies property shall leave a
true and attested copy of the process with the defendant, or at
his usual place of abode, within three days after the replevy,
and shall retain the property replevied in his custody for
twenty-four hours after leaving the copy, unless the
defendant endorses on the writ that he is satisfied with the
amount and sufficiency of the recognizance taken on issuing
the wnit
(b) If the defendant is not satisfied with the
recognizance, he may, at any time before the return day of
the writ, cite the plaintiff or his attorney, or the officer
serving the writ, if the property still remains in his custody,
to appear at once before a judge of the superior court where
the replevin was effected, to respond to a motion for a new
bond. The judge may hear the motion and, at his discretion,
order a new or further bond, conditioned like the
recognizance taken on issuing the writ, signed by the
obligors, and delivered to the defendant, by whom it shall be
transmitted to the court to which the writ was made
returnable. If the order is made while the property replevied
remains in the custody of the officer, he shall not deliver the
property to the plaintiff until the bond is given
(c) If an order for a new bond is not complied with, or if
the officer fails to leave with, or at the usual place of abode
of, the defendant a true and attested copy of the writ, or to
retain the property in his custody, as hereinbefore provided,
the wnt of replevin shall be null and void
(d) If it appears to the court before which an action of
replevin is pending that the replevin bond attached to the writ
is insufficient, the court may, at its discretion, order a new or
further replevin bond to be given to the plaintiff, conditioned
like the recognizance taken on issuing the writ. If the
plaintiff fails to comply with the order, he shall be nonsuited
Section 52-525. Statement of title. (a) An allegation by
either party that the party pleading or a third person was, at
the time when the action of replevin was commenced, or at
the time the goods were replevied, the owner of the goods, or
that they were then his property, is a sufficient statement of
title unless the right of action or defense rests upon a nght of
possession by virtue of a special property interest
(b) If the nght of action or defense rests upon a nght of
possession by virtue of a special interest, the pleading shall
set forth the facts upon which the special property interest
depends so as to show that, at the time when the action was
commenced or the goods were replevied, as the case may be.
the party pleading or the third person was entitled to the
possession of the goods
(c) The defendant may, by answer, defend on the ground
that a third person was entitled to the possession of the goods
without connecting himself with the latter’s title
APPENDIX
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
ANSONIA/MILFORD
CV96 00532978 SUPERIOR COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE, ET AL
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
VS ANSONIA/MILFORD AT
MILFORD
ANDREW LIPKO, JR AUGUST 15, 1997
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, Margaret Christie, individually and as
executrix of the Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr., brought this
two-count action against the defendant, Andrew Lipko, Jr
who is her brother. The first count seeks to enjoin
permanently the defendant from filling any further motions
and/or appeals to further delay the closing of the Estate of
Andrew Lipko, Sr. The second count sets forth a claim for
vexatious litigation and seeks $43,648.55 in damages. After
full consideration of the evidence presented to the court, the
court finds that the plaintiff, as executrix of the estate, has
suffered irreparable harm and been left with no adequate
remedy at law and furthermore finds that the plaintiff has
established a claim for vexatious litigation. The court
therefor permanently enjoins the defendant from filing any
further motions and/or appeals to further delay the closing of
the Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr. Accordingly, the court
enters judgment for the plaintiff, but reserves decision of the
matter of damages until a hearing in damages is held
In conclusion, the court enters judgment for the
plaintiff on both counts and permanently enjoins the
defendant from filing any further motions and/or appeals to
further delay the closing of the Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr.
Although, the plaintiff claims fees and expenses of
$43,648.55 and seeks double or treble damages pursuant to
General Statutes Section 52-568, the court will reserve
decision on this matter until a Hearing in Damages is held.
Judgment may enter in accordance with the above.
The Court
s: Curran. J
Curran, J.
]
Connecticut Statutes Section 52-568 provides that
“Damages for groundless or vexatious suit or defense. Any
person who commences and prosecutes any civil action or
complaint against another, in his own name or the name of
others, or asserts a defense to any civil action or complaint
commenced and prosecuted by another (1) without probable
cause, shall pay such other person double damages, or (2)
without probable cause, and with a malicious intent unjustly
to vex and trouble such other person, shall pay him treble
damages.”
APPENDIX
RETURN DATE: MARCH 5, 1996 : SUPERIOR COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE, : J.D. OF ANSONIA/
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : MILFORD
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE all
ANDREW LIPKO, SR.
VS. : AT MILFORD
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. : FEBRUARY 8, 1996
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
The plaintiff in the above entitled action hereby
makes application for a temporary injunction in accordance
with her prayer for relief, and respectfully requests that the
temporary injunction be issued without bond as plaintiff has
sufficient funds with which to prosecute this matter to its
conclusion, and that the defendant be ordered to appear at an
early date to show ... cause why the prayer for an injunction
should not be granted.
PLAINTIFF
MARGARET CHRISTIE, EXECUTRIX
BY: s: Christine M. Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
Hurwitz & Sagarin, P.C.
147 North Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
(203) 877-8000
Juris #26616
APPENDIX
RETURN DATE: MARCH 5, 1996 : SUPERIOR COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE, : J.D. OF ANSONIA/
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : MILFORD
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE -
ANDREW LIPKO, SR. ,
VS. : AT MILFORD
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. : FEBRUARY 8, 1996
SUMMONS
To any Proper Officer:
By authority of the state of Connecticut you are
hereby commanded to summon the defendant in the
foregoing action, ANDREW LIPKO, JR., 31 Page Street,
Milford, Connecticut 06460, to appear before the superior
court at the place and time specified in the foregoing order,
then and there to show cause why a temporary injunction
should not be issued against him as prayed for in the
foregoing complaint and application, by serving in the
manner provided by statute for the service of process a true
and attested copy of the foregoing writ and verified
complaint, application, order and of this summons on the
defendant on or before March 5, 1996
Thereof and fail not, but due service and return make.
Dated at Milford, Connecticut this 4" day of February.
S: Christine M. Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
Commissioner of the Superior Court
APPENDIX
RETURN DATE: MARCH 5, 1996 : SUPERIOR COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE, ; : J.D. OF ANSONIA/
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : MILFORD
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
ANDREW LIPKO, SR. : AT MILFORD
VS.
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. : FEBRUARY 8, 1996
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION:
This is a complaint brought in two counts against
defendant Andrew Lipko, Jr. The first count seeks
permanent and temporary relief enjoining the defendant
Andrew Lipko, Jr. from continuing this abusive pro se
dalliances in the probate court, superior court and appellate
courts which have effectively prevented plaintiff from
closing the Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr. The second count is
for vexatious litigation. Defendant’s frivolous, vexatious
and dilatory motions and appeals against plaintiff over the
past two and a half years has delayed the closing of the
Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr. and has served to harass and
abuse the Executrix....
... any and all appeals from probate of the estate of
Andrew Lipko, Sr.
2. Damages, including double and treble damages.
PLAINTIFF
MARGARET CHRISTIE, EXECUTRIX
BY: s: Christine M. Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
Hurwitz & Sagarin, P.C.
147 North Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
(203) 877-8000
APPENDIX
SUPREME COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
NO. PSC-96-0229
Andrew Lipko
y
Estate of Andrew Lipko, Sr. et al.
ORDER ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION TO
APPEAL
On consideration of the petition by the plaintiff for
certification to appeal from the Appellate Court [AC 15898],
it is hereby ordered that said petition be, and the same is
hereby denied.
BY THE COURT,
s Alan M. Gannuscio
ASSISTANT CLERK-APPELLATE
Dated: December 18, 1996
Notice sent: 12/18/96
Clerk, Appellate Clerk
Reporter of Judicial Decisions
SAO
Andrew Lipko, pro se
Hurwitz & Sagarin, P.C.
Andrew Lipko, pro se, in support of petition; Christine M.
Gonillo in opposition.
APPENDIX
CV 01-0075535 § : SUPERIOR COURT
ELEANOR LIPKO : J.D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
VS. : AT MILFORD
ANDREW LIPKO, JR.: April 23, 2002
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Pursuant to P.B. Sec. 17-22, notice is given that on
April 15, 2002, the Court (Moran, J.) entered a Judgment of
Foreclosure by Sale with respect to the above entitled matter
as to the property located at 31 Page Street, Milford,
Connecticut. The Judgment is more particularly set forth as
follows:
JUDGMENT DEBT: = $26,031.24
COUNSEL FEES: $2,795.50
APPRAISAL FEE: $ 225.00
VALUE OF THE TITLE SEARCH FEE: $ 75.00
SUBJECT PROPERTY:$164.000.00
DATE & TIME OF SALE: June 15, 2002 at 12:00 NOON
on the premises
SIGN TO BE POSTED NOT LATER THAN: One month
prior to sale date
APPRAISER: Robert Ranaudo
RETURN OF APPRAISER TO BE MADE: Two weeks
prior to sale date i
PUBLICATION: The New Haven Register two Sundays
before sale date
INSURANCE TO BE ORDERED FOR SALE DATE: YES
DEPOSIT: $17,000.00
DEPOSIT WAIVED FOR PLAINTIFF: YES
, THE PLAINTIFF
BY s: Christine M. Gonillo
CHRISTINE M. GONILLO
CODY & GONILLO, LLP #41676
185 North Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Telephone 203-878-7491
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was
mailed, first class mail postage prepaid on the date above
written to the following non appearing party:
Andrew Lipko, Jr.
P.O. Box 536
New Haven, Connecticut 06503
s: Christine M. Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
Clerk, Superior Court
14 West River Street
Milford, CT 06460
APPENDIX
CV 01-0075536 S$ : SUPERIOR COURT
MARGARET CHRISTIE : J.D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
VS. : AT MILFORD
ANDREW LIPKO, JR. _: April 23, 2002
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Pursuant to P.B. Sec. 17-22, notice is given that on
April 15, 2002, the Court (Moran, J.) entered a Judgment of
Foreclosure by Sale with respect to the above entitled matter
as to the property located at 31 Page Street, Milford,
Connecticut. The Judgment is more particularly set forth as
follows:
JUDGMENT DEBT: = $ 26,031.24
COUNSEL FEES: $2,795.50
APPRAISAL FEE: $ 225.00
VALUE OF THE TITLE SEARCH FEE:$ 75.00
SUBJECT PROPERTY: $164,000.00
DATE & TIME OF SALE: June 15, 2002 at 12:00 NOON
on the premises
SIGN TO BE POSTED NOT LATER THAN: One month
prior to sale date
APPRAISER: Robert Ranaudo
RETURN OF APPRAISER TO BE MADE: Two weeks
prior to sale date
PUBLICATION: The New Haven Register two Sundays
before sale date
INSURANCE TO BE ORDERED FOR SALE DATE: YES
DEPOSIT: $17,000.00
DEPOSIT WAIVED FOR PLAINTIFF: YES
$8
I a Sa :
THE PLAINTIFF
BY s: Christine M. Gonillo
CHRISTINE M. GONILLO
CODY & GONILLO, LLP #41676
185 North Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Telephone 203-878-7491
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was
mailed, first class mail postage prepaid on the date above
written to the following non appearing party:
Andrew Lipko, Jr.
P.O. box 536
New Haven, Connecticut 06503
Ss: Christine M. Gonillo
Christine M. Gonillo
Clerk, Superior Court
14 West River Street
Milford, CT 08460
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
1. Amendment |: Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the nght of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
2. Amendment 4: The nght of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason-
able searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
Oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
3. Amendment 5S: “No person shall be held to answer
for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when an
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation’.
4. Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required,
no excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.
5. Amendment 14: All persons born or naturalized in
the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S.; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
6 United States Code, Title 28, Section 1343. The
district Courts shall have onginal jurisdiction +1) to recover
damages for injury to his person or property, or because of
the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the
United States, by any act done in furtherance of any
conspiracy mentioned in Section 1985 of Title 42: (2) To
recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to
aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in Section 1985 of
Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and
power to prevent, (3) To redress the deprivation under color
of any state law, statute, ordinances, regulation, custom or
usage, of anv right, privilege or immunity secured by the
Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress
providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within
the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages
or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of
Congress providing for the protection of Civil Rights,
including the right to vote.
z. United States Code, Title 42, Section 1983: “Every
person who,under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Terntory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of
the United States or other person within the jurisdiction there
of to the deprivation of any rights, privilege, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress. For the purpose of this
section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the
District of Columbia.
PEE SLOT SECT TOT Poot one am,
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.