Gary's Auto Parts, Inc. dba v. New Haven Truck & Auto Body, Inc. et al. (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

After a hearing in damages on January 8, 2014, the Court finds that the plaintiff, Gary's Auto Parts, Inc., dba has been nonsuited for failure to appear on November 8, 2013 and that the defendant is proceeding on its seven-count counterclaim against the plaintiff.   The Court finds that the defendant New Haven Truck & Auto Body, Inc. has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence presented at said hearing that the plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) is liable to the said defendant (counterclaimant) for the cost of labor and materials for painting, repairing, and refinishing certain motor vehicles between 2003 and 2009.

On September 18, 2013 a default for failure to appear (# 164) entered against Gary's Auto Parts as a counterclaim-defendant.   The said plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) did not appear and defend against the counterclaim at the Hearing in Damages on January 8, 2014.

Therefore, based on the evidence submitted, the Court finds that the plaintiff (counterclaim defendant) does owe the defendant those amounts invoiced and charged for labor and material under a certain contract signed by the parties on March 13, 2007 and as itemized in a certain affidavit of debt (# 167) dated January 7, 2014.   The Court further finds that judgment may enter in favor of the defendant-counterclaimant against the plaintiff in the amount reflected in plaintiff's affidavit of debt dealing with compensatory damages.

Without prejudice to the defendant, the Court is unable to find that the defendant has met the standards of Connecticut General Statutes § 42–110b et seq.  (Conn. Unfair Trade Practices Act) and therefore cannot award attorneys fees or punitive damages.

Judgment enters as follows for the counterclaimant defendant:

Principal Balance due and owing as adjusted:  $48,678.00

Costs allowed for expert:   7,500.00

Total Judgment $56,178.00

Postjudgment interest is allowed at 4% per annum.   Judgment enters accordingly.

BY THE COURT

V. ROCHE J.

Roche, Vincent E., J.