You are on page 1of 74

NO.

KNL-CV-09-5012654S

BOONE, KYLE KALlK, EST. OF, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
V. NEW LONDON
AT NEW LONDON

MONIZ, JOSEPH, ET AL OCTOBER 25, 2010

AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AGAINST


JOSEPH MONIZ, SIDNEY SCHULMAN AND SANDRA KEE BORGES

1. On October 5, 2010, Plaintiffs' counsel in this case, Attorney Suzanne

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.

Julia L. Aurigemma, J. in the matter of Disciplinary Counsel v. Joseph Moniz, Docket

No. HHD-CV08-4039487S to discuss, inter alia, the subject of this Motion for Contempt.

[See Attached Transcript].

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

November 5, 2009 garnishment order of this court "egregious," "misleading," and

"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

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED


TESTIMONY REQUIRED

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 ­

reflecting the deposit." [See Transcript, p. 49}.

3. On October 19, 2010, Mr. Moniz filed with the Court, in the disciplinary

action, a Respondent's Accounting. [See Attached]. This Accounting is in complete

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."

4. As such, Mr. Moniz has once again purposely and consciously

THE REARDON LAW FIRM, P.C.


A t t o r n e y s at La""

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.

5. Said conduct was contemptuous and in utter disregard of the obligations

that Mr. Moniz had to respect and honor the orders ot our courts and deprived the

Plaintiffs of funds to which they would likely be otherwise entitled.

WHEREFORE, the in Plaintiffs the above-entitled action respectfully request that

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

of this Court, and be appropriately sanctioned.

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:

Brock T. Dubin, Esq.


Donahue Durham & Noonan, P.C.
Concept Park
741 Boston Post Rd.
Guilford, CT 06437
Tel.: (203)458-9168
Fax: (203)458-4424
E-mail: bdubin@ddnctlaw@com
Counsel for Defendant, Lewis & Munday, PC

Gary G, Cooper, Esq.


197 Coligni Ave.
New Rochelle, NY 10801
Tel.: (914) 636-5824
Pro Se Counsel for Defendants
Gary G. Cooper

Marilyn J. Ford, Esq.


Quinnipiac College/Law
275 Mt. Carmel Ave.
Hamden, CT 06518
Tel.: (203)582-3258
Fax:

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

Thomas W. Boyce, Jr., Esq.


Faulkner & Boyce, P.C.
216 Broad Street
P.O. Box 391
New London, CT 06320
Tel.: (860) 442-9900
Fax: (860) 443-6428
E-mail: twb@faulknerandboyce.com
and jsm@faulknerand boyce.com
Counsel for Lewis & Munday, LLC

Elizabeth Cristofaro, Esq.


Goldberg Segalla LLP
100 Pearl St., yth FI.
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel.: (860)760-3300
Fax: (860)760-3301
E-Mail: ecristofaro@goldbergsegalla.com
Counsel for Defendant, Joseph A. Moniz

Sandra Kee Borges, Esq.


Corporation Counsel City of Hartford
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel.: (860) 757-9700
Fax: (860)722-8114
Corporation Counsel for City of Hartford

Sidney Schulman, Esq.


10 Grand St.
Hartford, CT 06106
Tel.: (860)524-8807

THE REARDON LAW FIRM, p.e.


A t t o r n e y s at Law
160 Hempstead Street· P.O. Dravver 1430 • New London, CT 06320 • Tel. (860) 442-0444 • Juris No. 102515
Fax: (860)522-0130
Trustee for Joseph A. Moniz

Attorney William F. Dow, III


Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz
350 Orange St.
New Haven, CT 06503
Tel.: (203) 772-3100
Fax: (203) 772-1691
Attorney for Joseph Moniz
(Disciplinary Counsel matter)

Suzanne B. Sutton, Esq.


Assistant Disciplinary Counsel
100 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Tel: (860) 706-5055
Fax: (860) 706-5063
Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel

THE REARDON LAW FIRM, P.C.


A t t o r n e y s at LaW'
160 Hempstead Street· P.O. Drawer 1430 • New London, CT 06320 • Tel. (860) 442-0444 • Juris No. 102515
NO. KNL-CV-09-5012654S

BOONE, KYLE KALlK, EST. OF, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
V. NEW LONDON
AT NEW LONDON

MONIZ, JOSEPH, ET AL OCTOBER 25, 2010

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

Other Orders of this Court, if any:

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ THE COURT

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

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL JUDICIAL DISTRICT


OF HARTFORD

v. AT HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT

JOSEPH MONIZ OCTOBER 5, 2010

BEFORE

The Honorable Judge Julia L. Aurigemma

A P PEA C E S

Representing the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office:

ATTORNEY SUZANNE SUTTON


Assistant Disciplinary Counsel
100 Washington Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106

Representing the Respondent:

ATTORNEY WILLIAM F DOW, III


Law Offices of Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow, & Katz, P.C.
350 Orange Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06511

Trustee:

ATTORNEY SYDNEY T. SCHULMAN


Law Offices of Sydney T. Schulman
10 Grand Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106

Representing Interested Parties:

ATTORNEY ROBERT REARDON


Reardon Law Firm, P.C.
160 Hempstead Street
P.O. Drawer 1430
New London, Connecticut 06320

Recorded and Transcribed By:


Lisa A. Moretto
101 Lafayette Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
1

1 THE CLERK: All rise. The Superior Court for

2 the Hartford Judicial District is open and in

3 session. The Honorable Julia Aurigemma presiding.

4 THE COURT: Good afternoon.

5 ALL: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: All right. This is Disciplinary

7 Counsel versus Moniz.

8 ATTY. SUTTON: Yes, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: And what's going on today?

10 ATTY. SUTTON: Suzanne Sutton, Assistant

11 Disciplinary Counsel, Your Honor, and this -- before

12 Your Honor today is Trustee Schulman's final report,

13 and motion for discharge as a trustee in Attorney

14 Moniz's disciplinary case.

15 The Disciplinary Counsel's Office has reviewed

16 Trustee Schulman's report. We have no issues with

17 the report. It seems that all the cases have been

18 that were pending at the time of the suspension have

19 been dealt with one way or another appropriately.

20 There's a couple dollars left in the IOLTA

21 account which has been frozen since Attorney Schulman

22 took over. We have no problem if Attorney Schulman

23 wants to apply the two dollars to towards any fees or

24 costs he's incurred, and close that account, and then

25 be discharged as trustee, Your Honor.

26 THE COURT: Okay.


~-
-
And Mi.-bow, do you have any?

27 ATTY. DOW: I have nothing to submit at this


2

1 point.

2 THE COURT: Okay. And I notice Mr. Reardon is

3 here. Hello.

4 ATTY. REARDON: Hello, Your Honor. I'm here

5 again.
"0._..

6 THE COURT: You're here again.

7 ATTY. REARDON: May I address the Court briefly?

8 THE COURT: Sure.

9 ATTY. REARDON: If Your Honor please, I did file

10 just before I received a copy of the motion of Mr.

11 Schulman to be discharged, I had filed with this

12 Court a motion to - for an accounting and removal of

13 Mr. Schulman because of some di iculties that

14 occurr~d·with respect to the funds that we talked

15 about in April when I was here.

16 And I know Your Honor - I know Your Honor

17 indicated in April this was for Judge Luba to handle

18 because there was a garnishment if you recall that he

19 -- he had entered in a case that I represent the

20 plaintiff in. It's a legal malpractice case against

21 Mr. Moniz. However we -- there was two payments of

22 65 or $62,500 -- I'm not clear which it is - by

23 agreement deposited it in an escrow account and that

24 was reported to Your Honor that we reached that

25 agreement.

26 The first was in fact deposited in an escrow

27 account by Mr. Schulman. In the case of the second


3

1 payment, Your Honor, which came in August , Mr.

2 Moniz apparently contacted the payor, which is the

3 City of Hartford, and requested that the check not be

4 drafted to Mr. Schulman, but rather be dra ed

5 directly to him. He picked up the check and the

6 check never reached the escrow account.

7 And so aside from the fact that he failed to

8 honor a court-ordered garnishment, Mr. Moniz, which

9 was served upon him in hand in Court, actually, well

10 before this, and I have a copy of the in hand service

11 by the marshal, aside from the fact that Mr. Moniz's

12 conduct was -- was certainly improper, Mr. Schulman

13 allowed this to occur.

14 And that's why we have asked Mr. Schulman as a

15 trustee appointed by this Court who we view has a

16 duty to not just those funds that are lOLTA funds,

17 but he has a duty pursuant to the Practice Book to

18 all of the clients of Mr. Moniz. And certainly my

19 clients were clients of Mr. Moniz.

20 And he failed in his responsibility to those

21 clients by allowing Mr. Moniz to circumvent an order

22 of Judge Luba and pick up a check for some $62,500.

23 And as far as I know is to parts unknown. I don't

24 know where it went but it didn't get into the escrow

25 account. Mr. Dow and I do have an escrow account in

26 the Bank of America, which has the first payment in

27 it, but the second never reached the account.


4

1 And so I think that before he's - Mr. Schulman

2 is discharged, I would respectfully ask the Court

3 that he be required to account for that money since

4 the agreement regarding this money was reached here

5 in this courtroom and Your Honor included it as part

6 of your order.

7 If you -- if you would look at your order, it

8 was attached to our motion. It said specifically

9 that the I have it in front of me. The foregoing

10 motion having been presented to the Court is hereby

11 ordered no payment to be authorized except one by

12 agreement with Attorney Sutton, Attorney DOw, and the

13 attorney who obtained garnishment in June, Kyle

14 Kaleel (phonetic) Estate versus Moniz and the docket

15 number is included, and any other interested creditor

16 or after a hearing of which all of the above have

17 notice.

18 There was a subsequent hearing after that order

19 in August. I did not receive notice of it. It was

20 on August 5 th • However, Attorney Sutton was kind

21 enough on August 6 th to telephone me and tell me that

22 there was some discussion at that hearing on August

23 5 th before Your Honor regarding an additional payment

24 that was not going to go into the escrow account.

25 I immediately took a number of different steps

26 to try to prevent those funds from reaching Mr.

27 Moniz, including notifying Mr. Schulman, notifying


5

1 the City of Hartford by telephone and in writing.

2 And unfortunately the funds were allowed to go to Mr.

3 Moniz. So he has those funds and I don't have any

4 idea where they are at this point. But these are

5 funds that were subject to Judge Luba's garnishment.

6 And there has never been any request for Judge Luba

7 to -- to take up this matter by Mr. Schulman or Mr.

8 Moniz or his counsel.

9 I do have a motion for contempt pending before

10 the Superior Court of New London in my case for

11 violating the garnishment order.

12 THE COURT: And you said you filed the motion

13 for accounting in this Court?

14 ATTY. REARDON: Yes.

15 THE COURT: Do you have a copy?

16 ATTY. REARDON: Yeah, I did yesterday, Your

17 Honor.

18 THE CLERK: There was actually an issue with

19 that, Your Honor. It was fax filed, but

20 unfortunately it's too long to be fax led Ie

21 it here now, but we just couldn't accept - I'm

22 sorry, Your Honor.

23 ATTY. REARDON: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: And I guess this is not an e-filable

25 case so I can't see anything.

26 ATTY. SUTTON: Your Honor, there may be a date

27 stamp on that copy and that's from my office, just


6

1 you're aware of .
... --_.
2 ATTY. REARDON: Yes, Your Honor.

3 ATTY. SUTTON: There's a date stamp.

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 ATTY. REARDON: Attorney Sutton was kind enough

6 to let me know that there was a problem with the

7 filing and provided me with a copy outside the

8 courtroom.

9 THE COURT: I don't understand how the City of

10 Hartford, if it's under a garnishment, paid the money

11 to Attorney Moniz.

12 ATTY. REARDON: Their position is that they were

13 not served with the garnishment and ­

14 THE COURT: Oh.

15 ATTY. REARDON: And here's the - here's the

16 chronology of events, Your Honor. I get a -- I get a

17 call from Attorney Sutton rst. I have no idea that

18 there was a hearing on August 5 th here. I looked at

19 the transcript of the hearing in April April 26 th

20 when I was here. There's no reference to an August

21 5 th hearing. I have no notice of an August 5 th

22 hearing.

23 I did fi an appearance as an interested party,

24 but apparently it never -- it never was included in

25 the computer as far as I can tell because I wasn't

26 noticed of any additional hearings.

27 When Attorney Sutton was kind enough to call me,


7

1 I immediately upon being alerted by her sent letters

2 to Corporation Counsel of the City of Hartford

3 notifying her of the garnishment. I then -- she then

4 told me that it wasn't personally served on her,

5 although she was aware of it through Attorney

6 Schulman and had a copy of And I said well do

7 you need personal service and she said she did, so

8 thus I faxed a copy to the marshal and the marshal

9 served her.

10 When she when I was on the phone with her on

11 another occasion -- this was all taking place on

12 August 6 th -- she told me that Mr. Moniz had just

13 picked up the check a few minutes ago just before she

14 was served with the -- officially with the

15 garnishment.

16 So my position is, Your Honor, she knew of it.

17 Certainly, Mr. Schulman was served with it months

18 before this. And that's why he appeared in this

19 Court, because he was served with a garnishment. And

20 Mr. Moniz had personal service as well. And copies

21 of those service documents are attached to my motion.

22 THE COURT: I remembered -­

23 ATTY. REARDON: I will add, Your Honor ­

24 THE COURT: And I see in the transcript; it

25 appeared to ~e~epresentation by Mr. Schulman that

26 they'd worked this second payment out with you. I

27 mean -­
8

1 ATTY. REARDON: That's correct.

2 THE COURT: That's what

3 ATTY. REARDON: And as a matter of fact, I have

4 correspondence in May, well before the August

5 hearing, where Mr. Schulman - I notify Mr. Schulman

6 that he will escrow the second payment and in the

7 same bank account, where he responds to that letter a

8 week later indicating that he had an agreement with

9 me. And I'll be glad to provide correspondence to

10 the Court as well.

11 The bottom 1 on all of this, Your Honor, is

12 it was clear effort to circumvent - objection of his

13 garnishment order. There are ways to address a

14 garnishment order if you feel that for example it's

15 not valid or not properly served. Mr. Schulman was

16 alerted to that in April before this Court when he

17 was told that this was properly to be taken up by

18 Judge -- with Judge Luba.

19 When he - he nonetheless went ahead and - and

20 returned here in August and made certain

21 representations to this Court which seemed to -- I

22 believe to suggest that he was getting some sort of

23 confirmation from this Court that was he was about to

24 do which was to allow Mr. Moniz to get the second

25 check was given d blessing by this Court.

26 Or for that matter by Judge Margolis in the

27 Federal Court who mediated the City of Hartford case,


9

1 who was simply a mediator and had not ruled on any

2 motions.

3 The proper person the proper forum if you

4 will to hear all of this would have been the forum

5 that entered the order, Judge Luba's Court, the

6 Superior Court, Judicial District of New London. And

7 that - nothing has ever been led in that court by

8 Mr. Schulman or Mr. Moniz or their counsel. Whereas,

9 I have filed a motion for contempt that is pending.

10 THE COURT: So well you want Mr. Schulman to

11 account for the money.

12 ATTY. REARDON: Yes, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: But you know where went, right?

14 ATTY. REARDON: I don't know where went. I

15 know went to Mr. Moniz

16 THE COURT: Right. t'~':

17 ATTY. REARDON: and that's as far as I know.

18 Although there was -- there was some rumor, Your

19 Honor, that was shared with me by Attorney Sutton

20 that some of it might have gone to Attorney

21 Swerdloff's client who had some sort of child support

22 claim against Mr. Moniz.

23 And I don't know whether the money is in an

24 account somewhere in Mr. Moniz's name, whether it's

25 gone to Mr. Schulman, whether it's in escrow. As I

26 requested in writing on August 6 th that it be held in

27 escrow until I have an opportunity to be heard by the


10

1 Court. I just don't know, Your Honor, where it is

2 and I think I'm - my client is entitled to an

3 accounting for where the money went, given the fact

4 that Your Honor specifically indicated that I should

5 have been notified and given an opportunity to agree

6 upon any other disposition of these funds.

7 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Your Honor please, when an

8 attorney misrepresents to a Court, I usually give the

9 benef of the doubt, gure well maybe there was

10 some inadvertency or sloppiness or whatever. When an

11 attorney is given documentary proof that the s

12 related are not true and then turns around and

13 misrepresents to another Court, then I have to feel

14 it's intentional.

15 The document that is before Your Honor claims,

16 number one, that the amount was $65,000 a piece.

17 When I explained in a objection to a contempt motion

18 in New London that in fact that was my inadvertency

19 in way back in April or whatever it was in

20 indicating it was 65 when in fact it was sixty-two

21 five, as counsel just said. As a matter of fact,

22 we've known that all along. And yet the document

23 that I just received dated October 4, yesterday,

24 repeats the fact it was 65.

25 Number two, the document that I received

26 yesterday requesting of this Court to remove me as

27 trustee again repeats a falsehood. And that's the


11

1 only way I can put it because it says that the

2 there was to be one check the second check that

3 was received was to be $130,000 in one check payable

4 to Mr. Moniz and myself. That is clearly untrue.

5 I submitted along with my objection to the Court

6 in New London documentary proof that in fact there

7 was each time that both back in - in the end of

8 March and the end of July there would be two checks

9 each time. One was payable to me for my services.

10 The other was payable to me as trustee for Attorney

11 Moniz. There never was to be one check. So for

12 counsel to repeat that falsehood in this statement

13 and to use it as a basis to ask for my removal, I

14 frankly object to it and I think it's intentional.

15 I have to believe it's intentional because I

16 have for the Court, if I may approach, a copy of the

17 objection that I filed to the motion for contempt in

18 New London. Counsel back on or about September 1 st

19 filed a motion for contempt in New London court

20 against both myself and the Corporation Counsel in

21 Hartford, Saundra Kee Borges.

22 I attempted to file an objection to that, and

23 was told by the court that I could not do so unless I

24 entered as a party. Didn't really want to, but I

25 then filed a motion to cite in new party which I was

26 instructed to do along with the objection. And of

27 course copies went to counsel. In this I explain the


12

1 - the inaccuracies and misstatements and

2 misrepresentations. I would ke to present a copy

3 to this Court of it.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Now even after producing a copy

6 the Cintron versus Vaughn settlement agreement,

7 which specifically says that there are to be two

8 checks each time. After I presented that Attorney

9 Reardon again repeats this misrepresentation to this

10 Court in his motion to remove me as trustee when he

11 says

12 THE COURT: I'm confused. Whether there was

13 gonna be four checks, three checks, two checks, when

14 Mr. Reardon was here, he made it clear that whatever

15 money was gonna be coming to Mr. Moniz, there was a

16 garnishment against.

17 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I agree.

18 THE COURT: And when -- the hearing when Mr.

19 Reardon wasn't here, August 5 th , you indicated or I

20 thought you were telling me-- and the transcript

21 appears bear that out -- that this payment going

22 directly to Mr. Reardon was -- Mr. Moniz was okay

23 with Mr. Reardon, which regardless of how many checks

24 we're talking was not the case.

25 ATTY. SCHULMAN: The first check was, as Mr.

26 Reardon indicated, sits safely in a bank for -- with

27 Attorney Reardon and Attorney Dow. The second check


13

1 when I was here August 4th - - and by the way counsel

2 said well I didn't know about the hearing -- I mean

3 August 5 th , I didn't know about the hearing, but in

4 fact counsel was sitting in this courtroom when that

5 date was set back in early June, so counsel knew

6 about.

7 Now with respect to my representations, I'm glad

8 counsel provided a copy of the transcript, because

9 when counsel in this motion says that I suggested -­

10 that I suggested that Mr. Moniz had not been served,

11 my actual comments may be found on page 3 on line 15:

12 my understanding is that just to report to the Court

13 that as we said last time, Attorney Moniz does not

14 feel that he is under the garnishment order since he

15 was not -- he claims to have not been served.

16 I didn't suggest to the Court that he hadn't

17 been served. I told the Court quite bluntly that

18 that's what Mr. Moniz's position was. And in fact,

19 he has said that to me a number of times. I was

20 simply reporting to the Court the City Corporation

21 Counsel's Office claims they're not under the

22 garnishment order. That's of no moment to me frankly

23 -- or counsel as I understand. It's for them to work

24 out with the Court in New London, as Your Honor noted

25 last time.

26 And in fact, in fact, we had not received any

27 checks I think on August 5 th when we appeared in


14

1 Court. When Mr. Reardon didn't appear in court, even

2 though he knew of that date for the August hearing,

3 counsel for the grievance panel, Attorney Sutton and

4 I, discussed on the way out of court that Attorney

5 Reardon ought to be made aware of the circumstances.

6 And right after that was when Attorney Sutton

7 notified Attorney Reardon of the circumstances.

8 Attorney Reardon then attempted to go to the

9 Corporation Counsel's Office and demand the money.

10 Well they had never been served with anything

11 apparently so he faxed up according to what he just

12 reported and that's my understanding. He faxed up a

13 copy of the court's order. Except the only problem

14 is it's a faxed copy. It's not a service. And

15 number two, the City of Hartford wasn't named in the

16 - in the garnishment order. That's of no moment to

17 me.

18 THE COURT: Page 4 of the transcript.

19 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I'm sorry?

20 THE COURT: Page 4 of the transcript, the first

21 paragraph on the top, that's

22 ATTY. SCHULMAN: That's what they told me.

23 THE COURT: -- you speaking and we -- you're

24 telling me or the Court that we worked out an

25 agreement with Mr. Reardon with regard to the money.

26 So that said to me this money is okay to go to Mr.

27 Moniz. Mr. Reardon has approved it. And that was


15

1 totally untrue.

2 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Had the -- had the money come

3 to me, I report to the Court that I was under the

4 garnishment order and would preserve it and would

5 give it to Mr. Reardon or put it in the account. I

6 didn't care what happened if the money didn't come to

7 me; then it was not my responsibility.

8 But what - what I have learned what I have

9 learned just before the court hearing in August was

10 that apparently Mr. Moniz had gone to the Corporation

11 Counsel's Office and asked for the check to be made

12 out only to himself. The Corporation Counsel's

13 Office without talking to me at all or getting my

14 approval or disapproval had called the magistrate

15 down in New Haven. I didn't even know they called

16 him.

17 And the magistrate had basically said that they

18 don't Care how the money is given out if it's okay ­

19 if the prior association - I'm sorry the

20 grievance committee panel does not require the money

21 to paid in, they don't care. It was at that point

22 you know, I reported. I told the Court at that

23 point, if the money comes to me fine, then it's

24 preserved. But I don't see it as my responsibility

25 to have gone filing motions with the court and filing

26 motions with the court in New London or whatever.

27 It was Mr. Reardon's responsibility to go to the


16

1 court in New London and to make sure that the City of

2 Hartford was properly served with a garnishment

3 order, so that the money would go either to me or to

4 Mr. Reardon. But Mr. Reardon didn't do that, so the

5 City of Hartford sent letters to Mr. Reardon after he

6 demanded the money of them saying we're not gonna do

7 it. We're gonna give the money to Mr. Mon~z. We

8 don't care what you do. We have not been served with

9 a garnishment. That doesn't involve me as trustee,

10 Your Honor. So you know

11 THE COURT: But

12 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I feel that -­

13 THE COURT: what you represented ­

14 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Pardon?

15 THE COURT: -- to the Court was not that. Is

16 not what you just said. You didn't say well it's not

17 coming to me and therefore my position is

18 subject to the garnishment. We don't have to tell

19 Reardon. I mean if you said that I mean I would have

20 perked up and said well I don't -- I really don't

21 think I can do anything in any way, shape, or form to

22 approve the money going directly to Mr. Moniz.

23 I heard you and read you as saying this is okay

24 with Mr. Reardon that Mr. Moniz gets this money.

25 ATTY. SCHULMAN: No. I never meant to indicate

26 that

27 THE COURT: Well that's -­


17

1 ATTY. SCHULMAN: -- it was

2 THE COURT: - how it -­

3 ATTY. SCHULMAN: okay with

4 THE COURT: -- came across

5 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Mr. Reardon.

6 THE COURT: Mr. Schulman.

7 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Because Mr. Reardon was

8 violently against the money going to Attorney Moniz.

9 THE COURT: Well you say in this transcript that

10 you've cleared it and worked it out with Mr. Reardon.

11 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Well I'm sorry if I -- I

12 apologize if I was inarticulate in that instance,

13 Your Honor.

14 But clearly -- clearly I indicated to the Court

15 that there was a dispute which - which the Court had

16 indicated should be resolved in the courts in New

17 London as to -- as to that money and as to the City

18 of Hartford whether it was served or not served,

19 whether Mr. Moniz was served or not served; that was

20 for the parties to take up and that's what I said on

21 the page before.

22 That's what I said the -- it's for them to

23 work out with the court in New London just as Your

24 Honor stated last time. Cause there was a dispute

25 with the City of Hartford -- that's on the bottom of

26 page 3 -- there's the dispute with the City of

27 Hartford as to whether or not they were under the


18

1 garnishment order or not under the garnishment order.

2 And Your Honor had indicated that if there was a

3 dispute in that regard, that was to be taken up in

4 the court in New London.

5 THE COURT: And the next -- you know, I don't

6 want to argue with you, Mr. Schulman. I think this

7 was have to say egregious; that the very next breath

8 out of your mouth talking about the City of Hartford

9 and not being under -- knowing it was under a

10 garnishment was we worked out an agreement with Mr.

11 Reardon, which obviously was totally untrue and

12 misleading.

13 As I said, I don't know if - if I was supposed

14 to bless this or not, but as Mr. Reardon says,

15 seems like 1 was up here saying okay, well that

16 sounds fine. As I said, I don't think it's my job to

17 act as a bankruptcy court -- or I'm not the issuing

18 court for the garnishment, but -- but why tell me at

19 all if you didn't at least need some sort feedback

20 from the Court as to what you were doing and some

21 sort of tacit approval. And this is just -- it's

22 unbelievable.

23 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Mr. Reardon -­

24 THE COURT: What's your position on this, Ms.

25 Sutton?

26 ATTY. REARDON: Your Honor, may I approach only

27 for two reasons. First of all, I was not aware of


19

1 the August hearing, period. Had I been aware, I

2 would have been up here screaming wait a minute, as

3 Your Honor well knows, because on August 6 th that's

4 exactly what I did. I wrote Mr. Schulman a letter.

5 I wrote the City Corporation Counsel a letter. I

6 told them if they - if they release those funds to

7 Moniz I would cite them in contempt of an order of

8 the court in New London. They nonetheless went

9 ahead.

10 Now with respect to what the agreement was to

11 begin with, I would ask Your Honor to consider my May

12 3 rd letter written to Mr. Schulman to confirm what

13 occurred on April 26. It starts out: Dear Mr.

14 Schulman. It is my understanding based upon our

15 meeting in Superior Court in Hartford on April 26,

16 involving you and Attorney William F. DOw, III,

17 counsel for Mr. Moniz, and our subsequent telephone

18 conversation, that you are currently holding the sum

19 of $65,000 escrow representing an attorney's fee

20 intended for Joseph Moniz resulting from certain

21 1 igation.

22 It goes on to say, Your Honor: it is further

23 understood that you will be receiving an additional

24 $65,000 as a second payment on that attorney's fees

25 as soon as the total attorney's fee for Mr. Moniz of

26 $130,000 -- soon, as the total attorney's fees for

27 Mr. Moniz is $130,000, and that this amount is


20

1 subject to the same garnishment.

2 Finally, it is my understanding that these funds

3 represent one half of the total attorney's fees

4 awarded. That the other one half will be paid to you

5 as co-counsel for Mr. Moniz in that litigation. And

6 that Mr. Moniz has no right to the $130,000 portion

7 that has been or will be paid to you.

8 This is to confirm that we have reached an

9 agreement regarding that $130,000 fee of Mr. Moniz.

10 You are forthwith to deposit $59,450 in an interest­

11 bearing account, Simsbury bank, in the name of Robert

12 R. Reardon, Jr. and William F. DOW, III, co-trustees,

13 after deducting $5,550 from the $65,000 you already

14 hold, and use that $5,550 to pay an auditor who

15 undertook an audit of the client's funds of Mr. Moniz

16 pursuant to the direction of the Disciplinary Counsel

17 of the State of Connecticut.

18 In addition, as soon as the remaining $65,000

19 payment is received by you, you will also deposit

20 that entire sum in the same trust account with myself

21 and Mr. Dow as co-trustees. Signatures of both Dow

22 and myself will be required for any withdrawal from

23 those accounts.

24 The response I got on May 12 th , seven or nine

25 days later: Dear Mr. Reardon -- th is from Mr.

26 Schulman. Pursuant to your letter of May 3, 2003, in

27 the above-entitled matter, I confirm with Attorney


22

1 Mr. Schulman tried to get away with it. And I

2 can assure you I have absolutely no knowledge of what

3 occurred on August 5, until Disciplinary Couns

4 called my office on the morning of August 6 th and

5 notified me. I didn't know about the hearing. I

6 wasn't given notice of the hearing by anyone. And I

7 would have been here, had I known what was going on.

8 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Mr. Reardon would have been

9 here if he had taken notice of the hearing date, Your

10 Honor, when he was sitting in court here when that

11 date was set.

12 ATTY. REARDON: I have the transcript, Your

13 Honor. It's attached. It doesn't mention another

14 hearing date in the transcript. Mr. Schulman put

15 that in his letter to me. I read it three times.

16 There's no mention of a hearing date. Mr. Schulman

17 ought to read the deposition read the transcript

18 of the hearing on April 26. No mention ­

19 ATTY. SCHULMAN: That wasn't April. It was the

20 beginning of June.

21 ATTY. REARDON: April 26 th is when I appeared,

22 sir. I didn't have any notice of a June hearing

23 until even now. Was there a June hearing, Your Honor;

24 I'm not familiar with that. And if there was I

25 didn't know about that one either.

26 ATTY. SCHULMAN: In any event, Your Honor, that

27 there is no question about the letters that


23

1 Attorney Reardon reads to the Court. I never deny

2 that I was under a garnishment. I never denied. And

3 indeed had a received one nickel it would have gone

4 into that account. That's what we agreed to; that's

5 what would happen.

6 For Attorney Reardon to concoct some story that

7 I'm in some kind conspiracy with the Corporation

8 Couns of the City of Hartford is outrageous. Said

9 Corporation Counsel of the City of Hartford can come

10 before this Court and state to the Court what

11 occurred.

12 I didn't even know that Attorney Moniz had gone

13 and asked for the check to be made out to him and

14 that Corporation Counsel agreed that they were not

15 under a garnishment. And it was the Corporation

16 Counsel's Office that went to and I have emails

17 showing that they went to the Magistrate's Office

18 directly without contacting me in order to ask if the

19 magistrate had any objection to a check being made

20 out directly to Attorney Moniz.

21 When they said it didn't and the Disciplinary

22 Counsel indicated they had no objection, the check

23 was made out to Mr. Moniz. But even then since the

24 check had not been received by the time I came to

25 court on August 5 th , when counsel and I were walking

26 out of the courtroom, we agreed that Attorney Reardon

27 should be notified immediately, so he could do


24

1 whatever he had to do.

2 THE COURT: Well

3 ATTY. SCHULMAN: But I never approved the

4 Corporation Counsel issuing such a check.

5 THE COURT: In light of the letter that Mr.

6 Reardon just read into the record from him to you,

7 from you back to him, how could you - how could you

8 represent to this Court or anybody else any way other

9 than this money is not supposed to go to Mr. Moniz;

10 it's supposed to go into this garnishment account?

11 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I agree.

12 THE COURT: But you didn't represent that to the

13 Court. You represented that it's okay to go to Mr.

14 Moniz and we worked it out with Mr. Reardon. That's

15 what you said on the transcript.

16 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I believe what I said, Your

~7 Honor, and what I but not only what I said but

18 what I meant to say was that the Corporation

19 Counsel's Office was taking the position that it was

20 not under the garnishment order and that it wanted to

21 give the check to Mr. Moniz.

22 THE COURT: Well

23 ATTY. SCHULMAN: And I said that I didn't care.

24 THE COURT: You -- you show me that language in

25 this transcript. I mean if that's what you meant to

26 say, you really couched it in very veiled, veiled

27 terms, cause I don't think it's in there.


25

1 In any event, you have a contempt - the

2 contempt is being taken care of before Judge Luba, is

3 that correct?

4 ATTY. REARDON: I have asked -- I have asked for

5 a hearing before Judge Luba, Your Honor, I haven't

6 received ­

7 0- THE COURT: Could I have copies of those two

8 letters that you just read?

9 ATTY. REARDON: Yes, Your Honor. I only have my

10 originals with me, so I'd ask if your clerk could

11 make a copy after the proceeding.

12 THE COURT: Sure. Okay. And so you want me to

13 order this accounting. Now what's the position with

14 respect - I mean, in one sense you want exactly what

15 Mr. Schulman wants - to be removed as trustee,

16 right?

17 ATTY. REARDON: Yes. I -- I think Mr. Schulman

18 ought not to continue. But before he finishes up, he

19 needs to account for the $62,500, which is what ne

20 now represents the amount to be, although initially

21 he did say 65,000 and then he corrected himself. And

22 I -- I'm willing to accept his representation that he

23 was wrong and that the amount was not $130,000 or a

24 hundred and whatever it is. It's now

25 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Also the case name was wrong,

26 Your Honor. There wasn't any case Hartford

27 Ministerial Alliance. It was Cintron versus Vaughn,


26

1 which is prominently displayed in the settlement -­

2 ATTY. REARDON: You know

3 ATTY. SCHULMAN: agreement.

4 ATTY. REARDON: I don't care

5 ATTY. SCHULMAN: (Indiscernible)

6 ATTY. REARDON: I don't care, Your Honor, what

7 the name of the case was, and I don't care whether it

8 was sixty-two five or sixty-five thousand. I don't

9 care if it's four checks or two checks, Your Honor.

10 All I care about is where's the money? I want it in

11 escrow.

12 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Mr. Reardon also doesn't care

13 when he suggests in here that there's other cases

14 that I might have co-counseled with Attorney Moniz

15 and be receiving money on it; which there are none,

16 Your Honor, and I haven't. So, you know, there's a

17 carelessness in the preparation of the -- of

18 counsel's motion with the facts and facts that they

19 know to be wrong.

20 And as I say if I was inarticulate and the Court

21 felt that I was saying that I approved -- I never

22 said I approved. I said ­

23 THE COURT: No. You said Attorney Reardon

24 approved that Mr.

25 ATTY. SCHULMAN: No. I never

26 THE COURT: -- Moniz get

27 ATTY. SCHOLMAN: -- said that Mr. -­


27

1 ~HE COURT: -- the check -­

2 ATTY. SCHULMAN: -- Reardon approved.

3 THE COURT: -- directly.

4 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Pardon?

5 THE COURT: You said Attorney Reardon approved

6 Mr. Moniz getting the check directly.

7 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I did not say that, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: Well that's how I - what I inferred

9 and I think it's a ir inference from your - from

10 what you said.

11 ATTY. SCHULMAN: What I -- what I specifically

12 and clearly said in here, Your Honor, was that there

13 was a dispute between Mr. Reardon, the attorney

14 Corporation Counsel's Of ce in Hartford, and I said


.~

15 they would have - as Your Honor indicated they would

16 have to resolve that dispute down in New London.

17 THE COURT: I ~- I didn't see anything about any

18 dispute with Reardon - Mr. Reardon. But anyway.

19 ATTY. SCHULMAN: But I never received any money.

20 If I had, it would be in the account. And I never

21 approved

22 THE COURT: I'm not saying you did, obviously.

23 But the fact that you - I don't want

24 ATTY. SCHULMAN: And I never approved not

25 receiving the money, which is more important. What I

26 said. was it was not an issue of mine. If I got the

27 money it was there; if I didn't get the money, it's


28

1 for somebody else to work out down in New London.

2 THE COURT: Well that -- okay. I'll give you

3 the opportunity. If you want to show me in that

4 transcript where you said that. Because I certainly

5 - if I had heard that and I had any say in it at

6 all, which I guess I have some say, I would have said

7 well there's no way Mr. Moniz is getting that check.

8 ATTY. SCHULMAN: On page 3.

9 THE COURT: There's no way I'm gonna sign off on

10 that.

11 And I don't understand; the Bar Counsel, why did

12 you sign 0 on it?

13 ATTY. SUTTON: Well I didn't really sign off on

14 it, Your Honor. What happened I think at that day ­

15 at least how I understood it and -- was that Attorney

16 Schulman was discussing the first payment because it

17 was made to he as trustee and Attorney Moniz, which

18 is why I dragged everyone in here to begin with.

19 Because I thought since he's a trustee appointed in

20 the disciplinary action, anything written to him as

21 trustee, I have to be aware of, and at least bring it

22 to the Court's attention.

23 The second check was written to Attorney Moniz,

24 without Attorney Schulman as trustee. So -- so this

25 this -- it was a little bit different. So we come

26 ~ to Court on another -- a motion for advice and I

27 think it was brought to the Court's attention, but I


30

1 think started on the basis that she knew I did

2 not know about it. I think her -- it was more a

3 question of inquiring was I aware of what had

4 occurred and it was a courteous - it was a courtesy

5 on her part to give me a call because I guess she

6 might have had some suspicion but didn't know.

7 And of course, I told her I had no knowledge of

8 the hearing and I was shocked. And I took immediate

9 action at that point, and got on the phone with

10 everybody involved, including the Corporation

11 Counsel. And then wrote letters to cover myself,

12 which I can provide to Your Honor if you need -- need

13 copies.

14 I did get a responsive letter on August 6 th from

15 Mr. Schulman which was -- which claimed that I was

16 present in court to set the new date. And the reason

17 I -- that they were allowed - he did what he did was

18 because I didn't show up and which is quite

19 different from what he's telling the Court now. And

20 I'll be glad to provide that to the Court if Your

21 Honor -- it's dated August 6, after he received my

22 fax letter of August 6 notifying him that unless -­

23 that if he allowed this money to be disbursed, that I

24 would cite him in contempt.

25 ATTY. SCHULMAN: The actual -- the actual

26 language, Your Honor, in the transcript on page 3 is:

27 my understanding is that just to report to the Court


31

1 that as we said last time Attorney Moniz doesn't feel

2 that he is under the garnishment order, since he has

3 not -- he claims not to have been served with respect

4 to a court order in New London.

5 The City Corporation Counsel's Office claims

6 they are not under the garnishment order. That's of

7 no moment to me frankly or counsel I understand.

8 It's for them to work out

9 THE COURT: Attorney Moniz wouldn't be -­

10 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Pardon?

11 THE COURT: -- a garnishee. He's the debtor,

12 right; he was served with the action.

13 ATTY. SCHULMAN: If - but my understanding of

14 my responsibility was that if - if there's a dispute


. ­
15 between the parties that's between the parties. If I

16 get any money, it has to go into the account or to

17 Mr. Reardon. That's my understanding. I have

18 nothing to do with the case in New London

19 THE COURT: It appears

20 ATTY. SCHULMAN: - except that if I come into

21 money - and Attorney Reardon had garnished me and

22 therefore if I came into any money I had to put it

23 into the account, period, end of report. I don't see

24 as a fiduciary, as trustee of the Court that I have

25 other responsibility to go to battle with the City of

26 Hartford in order to effectuate something that was

27 done in a settlement agreement -­


32

1 THE COURT: Of course -­

2 ATTY. SCHULMAN: on Mr. Reardon's behalf.

3 THE COURT: -- you don't. But you do have a

4 responsibility, since the issue has come up before

5 this Court, not to tell this Court -- to misrepresent

6 that there's this other payment -- the second payment

7 is coming and we've worked it out with Attorney

8 Reardon. It's okay that Mr. Moniz gets it -- cause

9 that's what you said August 5 th •

10 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Well, as I

11 THE COURT: And it appears that what happened

12 was that the hearing that you were at Mr. Reardon was

13 April 26, is that correct?

14 ATTY. REARDON: That's correct, Your Honor.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 ATTY. REARDON: That's the only time I ever

17 (indiscernible) ­

18 THE COURT: There was another hearing for -- in

19 June and it was, I guess, continued. And would

20 assume that at the June hea ng, which you weren't at

21 that

22 ATTY. REARDON: Right.

23 THE COURT: - that's when the August 5 th date

24 was set. Although I have to go back and look at all

25 the transcripts, but that's probably what happened.


-' .~
26 THE CLERK: (Indiscernible)

27 ATTY. REARDON: I didn't get notice of the June

33

1 or the August hearing dates.

2 THE CLERK: Notice was sent out to Attorney

3 Reardon (indiscernible)

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 ATTY. REARDON: Okay. Let me say this, Your

6 Hono!', I don't I didn't get notice of it. But


". " - .. :.",

7 even if I had, my understanding was the last payment

8 was to be made on August 1 st and deposited in the

9 escrow account. So, you know, what's the need of me

10 coming up here on August 5 th ? I wasn't -- it wasn't

11 till August 6 th that I found out that that that

12 obligation that Mr. Schulman had agreed to in writing

13 had not been carried out. And that's only because

14 Disciplinary Counsel told me.

15 THE COURT: Yeah. I mean if I had gotten that

16 letter from you, Mr. Schulman, that Mr. Reardon got,

17 I wouldn't have felt that I needed to run up to

18 Hartford either. You said yeah, fine, when the

19 second payment comes, it's going into the escrow

" 20

account.

21 ATTY. SCHULMAN: But then what control would I

22 have over what the City of Hartford does, Your Honor?

23 THE COURT: Well at least you could have

24 reported to the Court; that I made this agreement

25 with Reardon, but now Mr. Moniz wants to get the

26 money himself, and it's out of my hands. That's not

27 what you said.


34

1 ATTY. SCHULMAN: The Court was aware that we had

2 made the agreement with Mr. Reardon.

3 THE COURT: Right. But the agreement was that

4 the money goes into the escrow account, not that it

5 goes into Mr. Moniz's pocket.

6 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I didn't know that at the time.

7 What I report -­

8 THE COURT: Well that's ­

9 ATTY. SCHULMAN: What I knew is

10 THE COURT: what it appears.

11 ATTY. SCHULMAN: -- what I reported.

12 THE COURT: Now that I'm reading it, you did

13 know it. And I did not get the impression that

14 that's what was gonna be happening or it

15 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Maybe it was an overabundance ­

16 THE COURT: -- to the extent I had any ability

17 to not approve it -- I'm not sure I did but I

18 certainly wouldn't have -­

19 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Maybe it was an overabundance

20 of caution on my part, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Or an underabundance.

22 ATTY. SCHULMAN: To the Court that there was a

23 dispute between Mr. Reardon and the City of Hartford

24 as to whether a garnishment order was effect and that

25 the check might go to Mr. Moniz directly rather than

26 come to me. I wanted to report that to the Court as

27 it perhaps an over caution, but I wanted to let the


35

1 Court know that that dispute was there.

2 ATTY. SUTTON: Your Honor, I was of the belief

3 that you wouldn't have had jurisdiction on earned

4 fees, and that that's one of the reasons why I called

5 Attorney Reardon and Attorney Swerdloff; in case they

6 • had to run to New London and do something about what

7 • was going on.

8 So I have to apologize to the Court, too,

9 because I just didn't think that that was a part of

10 the proceedings here in this Court.

11 THE COURT: Well it probably wasn't, but when we

12 have the trustee representing to ­

13 ATTY. SUTTON: Right.

14 THE COURT: the Court that yes, we're - we

15 have some more money here, and we have an agreement

16 with Mr. Reardon that it's going into Mr. Moniz's

17 pocket -- yeah, I might not have power to stop it,

18 but if I don't why even tell me; and that's -­

19 ATTY. SUTTON: I agree.

20 THE COURT: what happened.

21 ATTY. SUTTON: I absolutely agree, Your Honor.

22 ATTY. REARDON: If Your Honor please, on April

23 26, you did enter an order, which is attached to the

24 motion. And the order was that there would be an

25 agreement with me before the funds were dispersed.

26=
So there was your order.

27 THE COURT: That's true.


36

1 ATTY. REARDON: Whether it's valid or not valid

2 remains to be seen. It was based upon an agreement

3 that we reached in this courthouse on April 26 th and

4 it was confirmed by your order, which is which is

5 in the court file. And yet -- and then confirmed

6 further by my letters to Mr. Schulman, which he

7 responded to and acknowledged.

8 And all of that occurs by the first week in May,

9 the second week in May. And here we are in August

10 and Mr. Schulman is trying to circumvent that order.

11 And quite honestly, Your Honor, that's what I alleged

12 and I truly believe that to be the case.

13 Certainly Mr. Moniz tried to circumvent your -­

14 didn't even try. He successfully circumvented the

15 order. But Mr. Schulman was aware of it, and his

16 letter of August 6 th , the day I faxed him a letter,


--
17 pretty well spells out what occurred, which is that ­

18 - is that he was aware of this condition; that is Mr.

19 Moniz approaching the Corporation Counsel's Office

20 and asking them to make the check payable to him and

21 give it directly to him. That's the words of Mr.

22 Schulman's letter of August 6 th •

23 The Corporation Counsel had a conversation with

24 the Federal Magistrate's Office, which I learned

25 about after the fact, where the question was asked

26 whether the federal magistrate who mediated the

27 settlement of Cintron versus Vaughn had any


37

1 objections. Federal magistrate indicated that she

2 had no objection if the bar committee had none -- if

3 the bar committee had none, Your Honor.

4 This was memorialized in a letter from Natalie

5 Feola-Guerrieri, Assistant Corporation Counsel. I've

6 never seen that letter, but that's what Mr. Schulman

7 says. And so on Your Honor. This goes on and on.

8 It's a three-page letter that Mr. Schulman writes me

9 in defense of what he did on that day by allowing Mr.

10 Moniz to to get away with $62,500 that should have

11 been put in an escrow account pursuant to your order

12 and pursuant to the garnishment of Judge Luba.

13 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I would like somebody to

14 explain to me how I allowed anything when I had no

15 control. I had no appearance in that case. I had

16 nothing to do with it other than being certified to

17 garnishment. What I said in the letter to Attorney

18 Reardon is absolutely accurate and~~orrect. And I

19 didn't even know that they had gone to Corporation

20 Counsel's Office and exchanged emails with the

21 Magistrate's Office asking r permission to have the

22 check made out directly to Mr. Moniz. I didn't know

23 that.

24 I reported that to Mr. Reardon the next day

25 after the hearing and after counsel - after our

26 discussion -- called Mr. Reardon and let him know as

27 to what had occurred.


38

1 ATTY. REARDON: Mr. -- Your Honor, I must -- I

2 must respond to that. I'm sorry. And I - the

3 scenario on August 6 th was quite different from what

4 was just represented. When this letter came in that

5 I just read to you, which spelled out what Mr.

6 Schulman says happened, that was before the

7 Corporation Couns released the check to Mr. Moniz.

8 I was - I was told when it was released by her. The

9 first time I spoke with Attorney Borges, the check

10 had not been turned over.

11 The second time I spoke, it had been turned over

12 and minutes before was her words. And that was

13 minutes before the marshal served the garnishment

14 right on the City of Hartford. And if that isn't

15 circumventing -- and that's why I want her held in

16 contempt as well, Your Honor. They both were in

17 compliance to get Mr. Moniz that money rather than

18 put it into an escrow account where it was to be

19 deposited pursuant to your order and pursuant to

20 Judge Luba's order. Two orders defied.

21 THE COURT: All right. Would you be satisfied

22 if I ordered Mr. Schulman or Mr. Moniz to account; I

23 mean Mr. Moniz is the one who got the money.

24 ATTY. REARDON: I-­

25 THE COURT: And he's a party.

26 ATTY. REARDON: Yes, Your Honor.

27 THE COURT: And I mean, I think, what Mr.


39

1 Schulman said was -- as I've said many times

2 misleading to the Court. On the other hand, he's not

3 even Mr. Moniz's lawyer. And I think things could

4 have been handled differently, but, you know, he

5 really -- if Mr. Moniz is gonna violate the order,

6 what could Mr. Schulman do?

7 ATTY. REARDON: Well Mr. - Mr. Schulman was a

8 trustee of this Court and he was a trustee of

9 clients. That's what the Practice Book says. Now he

10 debates in his correspondence with me whether or not

11 his responsibility extended to my clients, who were

12 clearly former clients of Mr. Moniz. There's no

13 dispute about that.

14 And - and it is our position under the

15 appointment pursuant to the Practice Book that he has

16 as a duty to all of the past ients of Mr. Moniz not

17 just to selectively deal with the ones that had money

18 in an IOLTA account, but his duty extended to my

19 clients as well, Mr. Schulman. And that's part of my

20 motion for contempt as well; that he had obligation

21 to notify me as counsel for them.

22 Under the agreement that he entered into on

23 April 26, he further had a duty to my clients the

24 trustee of my clients to notify them of what Mr.

25 Moniz's intentions were before Mr. Moniz accomplished

26 what he set out to do.

27 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Mr. Reardon's client never


40

1 appeared on a list of clients that I had that I was

2 to be responsible for as trustee for Mr. Moniz. It

3 was my understanding that counsel represented that

4 client. And as counsel represented that client, as

5 with other clients of Mr. Moniz that had counsel put

6 an appearance in their case, that counsel represented

7 them from then on. And we reported to the Court that

8 the last person that that involved was Mr. Mundel

9 who's now represented by Attorney Freeman.

10 So I did not have trustee responsibility to

11 Attorney Reardon's client. And even if I had, the

12 garnishment -- again the ga shment order on me was

13 to be obeyed. But please explain the legal process

14 somehow by which if the City of Hartford decide

15 without claiming this conspiracy - that I would love

16 to have counsel try to prove and may he may try to do

17 that. Except that when I think the Corporation

18 Counsel, City of Hartford, who was barely two weeks

19 into the job at that time comes forward and

20 testi es, I think that the Court would be satisfied

21 that there never was any grand conspiracy to get this

22 money into Attorney Moniz's hands.

23 THE COURT: What do you have to say, Mr. Dow,

24 for - for your client? I mean, here's somebody who

25 presumably wants to get back into the bar.


~

26 ATTY. DOW: Understood, Your Honor. And I'm

27 THE COURT: And he's ignoring a garnishment


41

1 order.

2 ATTY. DOW: That it -- Your Honor, I have

3 limited knowledge of this. I was not -- as the

4 record reflects, was not present nor aware of any of

5 these proceedings till after the fact. I can

6 understand Your Honor's concern.

7 It did -- it does appear from reading the

8 transcript that Attorney Schulman was providing the

9 Court information about two separate checks. One

10 that he had, and a second about which there was some

11 dispute, as I read pages 3 and 4 of the transcript of

12 that, whatever that date was, a date at which I was

13 not present, and for which I presently apologize.

14 Beyond that, Your Honor, I have limited

15 knowledge about what had occurred, yet I appreciate

16 the Court's concern. And I certainly -- I expect

17 that apart from this this dispute it is something

18 that the Court will have to assess in terms of its

19 overall weight on Mr. Moniz's application to be

20 readmitted. But I'm not prepared to go any further

21 than that. At this point, I have limited knowledge

22 and can't really speak to that.

23 There is although I should indicate it is my

24 understanding that there have been two separate

25 proceedings in New London addressed to, at least a

26 l:0rtion of this issue, and yet a third that is

27 scheduled to be addressed at sometime in the near


42

1 future.

2 THE COURT: Urn.

3 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I don't

4 mean to belabor this, but if I -- if I can just point

5 out to the Court, how would I have indicated to Mr.

6 Reardo~ in any way, shape, manner, or form, agree to

7 Mr. Moniz getting the check when I speci cally said

8 that Corporation Counsel's Office claims they are not

9 under the garnishment order and that's of no moment

10 to me. It's for them to work out with the Court in

11 New London as Your Honor stated the last time, if

12 there was a continuing controversy between the City

13 of Hartford, Corporation Counsel's Office and

14 Attorney Reardon and what was to happen with that

15 money.

16 THE COURT: All right. Now Mr. Reardon wants

17 you to account for those" funds. And your position is

18 what; you can't account for them cause you didn't get

19 them?

20 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Your position is you can't account

22 for the funds because you didn't-get them?

23 ATTY. SCHULMAN: I'm I'm sorry, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: Mr. Reardon wants you to account for

25 the funds that you promised to send him in your May

26 letter.

27 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Mr. Reardon knows and said to


43

1 the Court that sixty-two thousand I think it was -­

2 no, fifty-nine thousand whatever it was - the sixty-

3 two five minus the three thousand and fty sits in a

4 bank account in Mr. Reardon's name and in Attorney

5 Dow's name. And he knows that and he I think said

6 that to the Court. And he knows that I don't have

7 any more money. I never had anymore money. I don't

8 know how to account for something I never had.

9 ATTY. REARDON: Your Honor, you will see that

10 the first check was that was put into the account.

11 A copy is attached to - to the letter that you have

12 Your Honor. The first check is payable to Sydney

13 Schulman, Trustee for Joseph Moniz.

14 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Correct.

15 ATTY. REARDON: Now how the heck did the second

16 check get changed to Joseph Moniz without him knowing

17 it? I mean, yes, the City Corporation Counsel must

18 have -- must have done it cause they were drafting

19 the check, but Mr. Schulman knew about it. Because

20 on August 6 th before the check was turned over to Mr.

21 Moniz, he wrote me and said, you know, I got nothing

22 to do with this - just as he's saying today. But he

23 had something to do with it at that point. He could

24 have stopped it from happening.

25 THE COURT: But

26 ATTY. REARDON: Or he could have notified me

27 before August 5 th that it was about to happen.


44

1 ATTY. SCHOLMAN: And how am I supposed to do

2 that?

3 THE COURT: That may well be, but you're asking

4 for an accounting -­

5 ATTY. REARDON: Yes.

6 THE COURT: and he doesn't seem to have ever

7 had the money.

8 ATTY. REARDON: Mr. Moniz has it apparently. At

9 least that's what I was told by Mr. Schulman.

10 THE COURT: I have no problem ordering Mr. Moniz

11 to account.

12 ATTY. REARDON: Thank you, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT; And I am - am ordering you to

14 account for that money that this Court anyway and

15 apparently Mr. Reardon believed was going to go into

16 this escrow account and not into your pocket.

17 So can you do that within a reasonable time?

18 ATTY. DOW: On behalf of Mr. Moniz, the answer

19 to that is yes. I suggest two weeks.

20 I think it might be beneficial -- can I just

21 have a second with counsel, both actually? Maybe I

22 should be the intermediary_

23 When's the hearing?

24 ATTY. REARDON: Well it hasn't been set down

25 yet. I imagine in a couple weeks.

26 ATTY. DOW: I think it would - we'd be in a

27 best position to respond subsequent to the New London


45

1 proceedings. I don't know if Your Honor agrees with

2 that, but that sounds like there's gonna be a back

3 and forth about that. From that there will emerge

4 some - some representations or perhaps even

5 testimony and that will be put us in a better

6 position to accurately -- to report back to the

7 Court.

8 ATTY. REARDON: I would disagree, Your Honor. I

9 think that Judge Luba was -- the first question Judge

10 Luba will ask is where's the money; and so let's get

11 an answer to that question. And so - and this Court

12 can just - has jurisdiction over Mr. Moniz to enter

13 an order directing him to.

14 THE COURT: When's the hearing in that?

15 ATTY .. REARDON: We don't have a date yet.

16 ATTY. DOW: Mr. Reardon indicates it's

17 unscheduled. He expects within a couple weeks.

18 ATTY. REARDON: Yeah. I wouldn't - it appeared

19 on the calendar last week, Your Honor, and it was

20 the motion for contempt was denied, and a motion for

21 reconsideration was filed. And I've been told by the

22 clerk that it will be heard.

23 The reason it the reason it didn't go forward

24 is because I was on my fortieth anniversary vacation

25 to Greece and the court was notified. But in any

26 event, I've been told by Judge Martin that the matter

27 will be put in the calendar in a few weeks r a


46

1 hearing, and I expect I'll be subpoenaing witnesses

2 at that time, Your Honor.

3 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Apparently Mr. Reardon got

4 office got there late and that's why the motion had

5 been -- the motion for contempt had been denied and

6 they have asked for re-argument.

7 ATTY. REARDON: Yes. And I'v~ been told

8 yesterday that it will be granted. I don't know when

9 will be put down for a hea ng though, Your Honor.

10 ATTY. DOW: Well then -- so if in fact there's ­

11 - from what Mr. Reardon indicates there's gonna be

12 there will be people subpoenaed. There presumably

13 will be witnesses who will either make

14 representations or testify. That will have -- that

15 will create a record which would be of assistance in

16 this - in us responding to Your Honor's concerns.

17 And I think would be helpful to have that amplified

18 record.

19 ATTY. REARDON: Your Honor, Mr. Moniz is the

20 only one ght now that we know of that knows where

21 that money is, and he should be required to account

22 for where the money is. And that is an essential

23 element of what's going to happen when we get before

24 Judge Luba on the motion for contempt.

25 So if - respectfully if the Court could simply

26 tell Mr. Moniz that he's under an order to account

27 for where the money is.


47

1 And I would also ask this Court to order Mr.

2 Moniz not to dispose of the money, or trans r the

3 money any further, not to certainly break -- take it

4 to any other jurisdictions outside the State of

5 Connecticut, so it can be subject to garnishment or

6 attachment here in Connecticut at the appropriate

7 time should we find it.

8 THE COURT: Okay. I will order that by October

9 19, Mr. Moniz account for the money received from the

10 Hartford Corporation Counsel on or about August 6,

11 2010, and to refrain from trans rring that money,

12 since it's clearly -- he knew or should have known

13 clearly under a garnishment of Mr. Reardon and

14 possibly others, but we know about Mr. Reardon's.

15 ATTY-.~REA-RDON :Th~~nk you, Your Honor.

16 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Would the hearing be here at 2

17 p.m., Your Honor?

18 THE COURT: Excuse me?

19 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Did Your Honor say there would

20 be a hearing here at 2 p.m. on the 19 th ?

21 THE COURT: No. By October 19 th -- there's no

22 hearing.

23 ATTY. DOW: Do you want something in writing?

24 THE COURT: It's a written accounting I take it

25 you want?

26 ATTY. REARDON: Yes, Your Honor.

27 ATTY. DOW: Very good.


48

1 THE COURT: So
l!I"'.
2 ATTY. REARDON: Your Honor, may we have,

3 pursuant to that order, since I know Mr. Moniz has

4 accounts and has real estate in Maryland, may we -­

5 if he's put it into any bank accounts in Maryland or

6 out of the State of Connecticut, may we have at least

7 some order that the bank statements be produced, so

8 we can have some satisfaction as to where this money

9 was deposited some written verification rather

10 than his so representation as to where the money is

11 now.

12 In other words, just simply where did he deposit

13 it; the bank account of that deposit, and if there's

14 any transfer after that, what the bank accounts

15 depict with respect to transfers.

16 ATTY. DOW: I don't know if that's necessary.

17 If it's indicated where it ended Vp, I think that

18 answers the question, does it not?

19 ATTY. REARDON: Well it becomes important in a

20 motion for contempt, Your Honor.

21 ATTY. SUTTON: Also Your Honor, in light of the

22 respondent's history, we've asked for accountings

23 many times and ultimately were provided with profit

24 and loss type statements, so I think as detailed as

25 you can get would be a good idea just in light of the

26 respondent's history responding to these types of

27 requests.
49

1 THE COURT: All right. The accounting should

2 include where the money is, and if it's in a

3 financial institution of any sort, identify the

4 financial institution, and provide a copy of the

5 statement indicating - reflecting the deposit.

6 ATTY. REARDON: Thank you, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: And with - with the final report,

8 I'm gonna discharge Attorney Schulman.

9 ATTY. SCHULMAN: Does the Court wish to make any

10 order with respect to the misrepresentations of

11 counsel in the motion?

12 THE COURT: Of which counsel, you or Mr.

13 Reardon? No, not Mr. Reardon, no. I'm not gonna

14 make any order about that. I'm not sure there are.

15 If there are misrepresentations, there's plenty to go

16 around here. So anyway, so the next step with

17 respect to the Disciplinary Counsel is? We don't

18 need to schedule another hearing?

19 ATTY. SUTTON: No, Your Honor. Attorney

20 Schulman is discharged. The accountings is accepted,

21 so there's nothing further on the disciplinary action

22 until such time as Attorney Moniz seeks readmission.

23 I would like to state for the record that we

24 will be filing an amended presentment complaint and

25 requesting a hearing on those -- those counts that

26 were amended. So we will see you again, but I don't

27 know when.
50

1 THE COURT: All ght.

2 ATTY. DOW: Try and be patient with that one,

3 will ya, Judge?

4 THE COURT: All ght. Thank you.

5 ATTY. SUTTON: Thank you, Your Honor.

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

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL JUDICIAL DISTRICT


OF HARTFORD

v. AT HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT

JOSEPH MONIZ OCTOBER 5, 2010

C E R T I F I CAT ION

I hereby certify the foregoing pages are a true and

correct transcription of the audio recording of the above-

referenced case, heard in Superior Court, Judicial District of

Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut, before the Honorable Julia L.

Aurigemma, Judge, on the 5 th day of October, 2010.

Dated this 10 th of October, 2010 in Harford, Connecticut.

Recording Monitor

Certification is signed in blue ink.

A photocopy of this transcript is not a certified copy

..~.

NO. HHD-CV-08-4039487S

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL SUPERIOR COURT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRlCT OF HARTFORD


AT HARTFORD

JOSEPH MONIZ OCTOBER 19,20 I 0

'0" RESPONDENT'S ACCOUNTING


'"
<D
0

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

8 100.00
I/l M
0
~
.
CL

g
~

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

811311 0 SYMS Clothing 134.93

8116/10 . Araujo Brothers (Septic 1,135.00


355.00

510.18

400.00

93.50

260.18

.40

200.00

2,500.00

350.00

Electric Bill Past Due 325.00

Cue Assoc. Rent for Sept.

i T. Mobile Cell Phone (Casb) ! 100.00

ATM Withdrawal for Travel I 340.00

19113/10 Check 250.00

I 91l4/l 0 ATM Withdrawal 340.00

Rye Grill & Bar (Dinner 226.71


With Family)
Postal Money Order 500.00

Auto Repair in M 204.33

100.00

9/20/10 ATM Withdrav/al - CT 340.00

9/2311 0 ATM Withdraw'al 102.00

19/27110 ATM Withdrawal CT 250.00

A TM Withdrawal - CT 100.00

'"0 10/4/10 i A TM Withdrawal CT 300.00


'"""
0

0
:Z
w
10/4/10 ATM Withdrawal CT 250.00
~
:x:
s:UJ
149.40
v
.
Z
co
co
co
'"
"0" ci
<0
x:
Z
(/)
10/711 0
0 ii"
en
UJ
:;;
0
u:
u..
0 0
0
f-
(/)
0 '"
N

."
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 Major Expenses: $ 52,460.21

Minor Expenses (Incurred Between 8/611 0 and 1011811 0 for


Day-to-Day Food, Travel, etc.): 1.602.79

Total: $54,063.00

Remaining Balance: 8A37.00


As this Court is aware, there is presently pending a civil action against the Respondent in

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

proceedings in this Court.

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:

Robert Reardon, Esquire

160 Hempstead Street

P.O. Drawer 1430

New London, CT 06320

Suzanne B. Sutton, Esquire

Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office

100 Washington Street

Hartford, CT 06106

. a
£:!.
ti:i
uJ
a:

(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

KYLE K. BOONE, EST. BY


ANTHONY BOONE, ADMIN" ET AL .1.0, OF NEW LONDON

. VS. AT NEW LONDON

JOSEPH MONIZ, ET AL SEPTEMBER 13,2010

DEFENDANT MONIZ'S MOTION TO MODIFY PREJUDGMENT REMEDY

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,

Joseph A. Moniz, contingent or otherwise...." See Order of Garnishment, attached hereto as

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

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED


NO TESTIMONY REQUIRED

GOLDBERG SEGALLA lLP


100 Pearl S!reeV71h H
Hartford, CT 06103
Juris No.: 428263
Pnone: (860) 760·3300
fax: (860) 760·3301
After the issuance of the garnishment order, two checks were issued for the benefit of the
f

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

, denied by the Court, rvfartin, 1., on September 13, 20 10.

The Defendant, Joseph A. Moniz, now seeks a modification ofthe prejudgment remedy

issues in the present case.

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

applicable at an initial hearing. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-2781<:.

B. "Earnings" Are Specifically Exempted From l~rejudgment Garnishment

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.

Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-278b, entitled "Aval lability of Prejudgment


I
, Remedy," provides in pertinent part: "Notwithstanding any provision oflhe general statutes to

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

defendant. COlU1. Gen. Stat. § 52-329 (emphasis added).

The Connecticut Superior Court has denied prejudgment requests for garnishment or

monies deemed to constitute "earnings." In Hanington v. Dyer, 50 Conn. Supp. 460,2007


,
:1 Conn. Super. tEXIS 1939 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 27, 2007) (Vacchclli, J.), the COUl1 declined to

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

is a determination to be made on a case-by-case basis."

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

. garnishment in a PJR application. !s.L at 468.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP


100 Pearl Streett7" FI. 3
Hanford, CT 06103
Juris No.. 428263
Phone: (860) 760·3300
Fax: (860) 760·3301
Additionally, in Caliendo v. Coassin, 1994 COlltL Super. LEXIS 2707 (Colm. Super. Ct.

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

contemplated by Connecticut General Statutes Sections 52-278b and 52-350a(5). Any

"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

the statutOlY mandate set fortb in Section 52-278b.

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

. should be ordered by the Comt to be released to the Defendant.

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

I, Sydney Schulman, should be released to the Defendant

THE DEFENDANT
JOSE ~ MONIZ
\
"

BY _\--_-+_ _ _ _ _ _ __

, stofaro@goldbergsegalla.com

GOLDBERG SEGALLA lLP


100 Pearl Slreell7~ FI.
5
Harllord. CT 06103
Ju~s No.: 428263
Phone: (860) 760·3300
Fax: (860) 760-3301
ORDER

The foregoing Motion having been heard by the Court, it is hereby ORDERED:

GRANTED / DENIED

BY THE COURT

Judge I Assistant Clerk

GOLDBERG SEGAlLA llf' 6

100 Pearl Slreetl7/h FI.


Hartford, CT 06103
Juris No.; 4282G3
Phone: (860) 760-3300
Fax; (860) 760-3301
CERTIFICATION

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:

Rober! r. Reardon, Jr.,

The Reardon Law Firm

160 Hempstead Street

P.O. Box 1430

New London, CT 06320

Attorney Mcu'ilyn J. Ford


\ Quinnipiac College/School of Law
275 Mt. Carmel Avenue
Hamden, CT 06518

Gary Cooper, Esq.

197 Coligni Avenue

i New Rochelle, NY 10801

I, Faulkner & Boyce PC


~ 216 Brond Street
I P.O.Box 391
~ New London, CT 06320

i i BrockDubin, Esq.

~\r
Donahue, Durham & Noonan, PC
741 Concept Park
Guilford, CT 06437 I

\ \ 1---------.­
\~l izabeth M. Cristofaro

6259.1

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP


100 Pearl StreaiJ7'" FI.
6
Hartford, CT 061C3
Juris No.: 428263
Phone: (860) 760·3300
Fax: (860j760·3301
EXHIBIT B

<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

BOONE, KYLE KALIK ET AL JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NORWICHINEW


V. LONDON
MONIZ, JOSEPH ET AL AT NEW LONDON

10118/20 I 0

ORDER

Judicial Notice (lDNO) was sent regarding this order.

The following order is entered in the above matter:

ORDER:

THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER IS SCHEDULED FOR


A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO MODIFY THE
PJR, THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ALL
OBJECTIONS & REPLIES THERETO ON 10/27110 AT
10:00 A.M. AT NEW LONDON SUPERIOR COURT, 70
HUNTINGTON STREET.

415595

Judge: JAMES J DEVINE


Processed by: Linda Grelotti

KNLCV095012654S 10118/2010 Page I of 1