The following document was filed in the Connecticut Appellate Court by Attorney Robert E. Wright (Juris No. 101778) of Wethersfield, Connecticut on behalf of C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC. Records of the Connecticut Appellate Court indicate that within the last ten years Robert E. Wright has filed other documents on behalf of C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC, Klewin Building Company, Inc., C.R. Klewin, Inc., Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, Southeastern Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, and Williams Associates II, LLC.

STATEMENT OF NO OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR
PERMISSION TO FILE AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR ORDER

To the Honorable Chief Judge of the Appellate Court:

Pursuant to Practice Book §§ 61-4 and 66-2, defendant, C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC (“Klewin”), offers no objection to the July 6, 2010 motion of plaintiff, Crow and Sutton Associates, Inc. (“C&S”), seeking permission to file an appeal of the Trial Court’s May 21, 2010 partial summary judgment in Klewin’s favor. Klewin takes this position based on a representation that was made by C&S and that was relied on by the Trial Court. Klewin requests an order enforcing C&S’s representation.

Factual Grounds

C&S represented to both the Trial Court and to Klewin that “C&S will pursue the Fifth Count of its Second Amended Complaint [the only count not resolved by the Trial Court’s partial summary judgment] only if C&S’s appeal results in a reversal of the summary judgment decision in C&S’s favor.” C&S Memorandum, June 7, 2010 at 5. The Trial Court relied on this representation in its written determination that C&S should be allowed the opportunity to immediately appeal the partial summary judgment. Memorandum of Decision, June 21, 2010 at 4-5.

The Trial Court’s written determination contained the following:

• Since [C&S] has stated that the fifth count will not be pursued in the event that the court’s decision is not reversed, an immediate appeal may resolve the entire case, so that no trial may be needed. The possibility of having two trials, with the attendant expense for the parties and expenditure of judicial resources, will be avoided thereby.

Id. at 5.

Legal Grounds

To provide an enforcement mechanism to ensure that the judicial economy promised by C&S and relied on by both the Trial Court and Klewin is realized, Klewin requests an order requiring that if C&S’s appeal is disposed of in any manner other than a reversal in C&S’s favor, C&S promptly must withdraw its Fifth Count in the underlying case with prejudice. If C&S believes such an order is inappropriate in any way, C&S should immediately notify the Chief Judge, and Klewin should be given an opportunity to object to C&S’s motion.

Draft Proposed Order

The Motion of Crow and Sutton Associates, Inc. (“C&S”), seeking permission to appeal the partial summary judgment granted in favor of C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC, having been presented to the Chief Judge of the Appellate Court, it is hereby granted on the stipulation that if the appeal is disposed of in any manner other than a reversal in C&S’s favor, C&S promptly must withdraw its Fifth Count in the underlying matter with prejudice.