On December 21, 2023 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Chaney Moon,
L. Fernanda Moon A K A Fernanda Moon,
and
Calcagni Real Estate, Inc.,
Ideal Environments, Llc,
Investment Property Solutions, Llc,
Kegan Politz,
Kegan Politz Electrical Contractor, Llc,
Louis Nero Jr,
Magnified Home Inspections Llc,
Mobiland Llc,
Munoz Modern Llc,
Ralph Riccio,
Shoreline Referral Group, Llc D B A Re Max Alliance,
Steven Cochrane,
Town Of Branford,
Vedran Josic,
for M90 - Misc - All other
in the District Court of New Haven County.
Preview
DOCKET NO.: NNH-CV24-6138898-S: SUPERIOR COURT
:
CHANEY MOON AND L. FERNANDA :
MOON A/K/A FERNANDA MOON :
:
V. :
:
MOBILAND, LLC, VEDRAN JOSIC, :
MUNOZ MODERN, LLC, INVESTMENT :
PROPERTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, :
STEVEN COCHRANE, KEGAN :
POLITZ ELECTRIC CONTRACTOR, :
LLC, KEGAN POLITZ, IDEAL : J.D. OF HARTFORD
ENVIRONMENTS, LLC, TOWN OF :
BRANFORD, CALCAGNI REAL : AT HARTFORD
ESTATE, INC., RALPH RICCIO, :
MAGNIFIED HOME INSPECTIONS, :
LLC, LOUIS NERO, JR., AND :
SHORELINE REFERRAL GROUP, LLC :
D/B/A RE/MAX ALLIANCE : JANUARY 24, 2024
ANSWER OF KEGAN POLITZ INDIVIDUALLY,
AND SPECIAL DEFENSES
AS TO FIRST COUNT (AGAINST MOBILAND AND JOSIC)
1-27. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-27 of the
plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them.
AS TO SECOND COUNT (AGAINST MOBILAND AND JOSIC)
1-29. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 of the
second count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not
respond to them.
AS TO THIRD COUNT (AGAINST MOBILAND AND JOSIC)
1-29. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 of the third
count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond
to them.
1
AS TO FOURTH COUNT (AGAINST MOBILAND AND JOSIC)
1-31. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-31 of the
plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them.
AS TO SIXTH COUNT (AGAINST MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS)
1. Admitted.
2. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
3. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
4. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
5. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
6. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
7. Denied.
8. Denied.
9. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
10. Admitted.
11. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
2
12. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
13. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
14. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
15. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
16. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
17. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
18. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
19. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
20. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
21. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
22. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
3
23. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
24. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
25. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
26. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
27. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a
belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof.
28. Denied.
29. Denied.
AS TO SEVENTH COUNT (AGAINST MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS)
1-27. The defendant repeats and restates its answers to the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1-27 of the sixth count and incorporates them herein as if set forth in full.
28. Denied.
29. Denied.
AS TO EIGHTH COUNT (AGAINST MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS)
1-27. The defendant repeats and restates its answers to the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1-27 of the sixth count and incorporates them herein as if set forth in full.
28. Denied.
29. Denied.
30. Denied.
4
31. Denied.
AS TO NINTH COUNT (AGAINST THE TOWN OF BRANFORD)
1-33. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33 of the ninth
count of the Plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond
to them.
AS TO TENTH COUNT (AGAINST TOWN OF BRANFORD)
1-33. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33 of the tenth
count of the plaintiff’s complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond
to them.
AS TO ELEVENTH COUNT (AGAINST TOWN OF BRANFORD)
1-34. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-34 of the
eleventh count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not
respond to them.
AS TO TWELFTH COUNT (AGAINST CALCAGNI AND RICCIO)
1-30. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 of the
twelfth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not
respond to them.
AS TO THIRTEENTH COUNT (AGAINST CALCAGNI AND RICCIO)
1-30. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 of the
thirteenth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not
respond to them.
AS TO FOURTEENTH COUNT (AGAINST CALCAGNI AND RICCIO)
5
1-31. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-31 of the
fourteenth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need
not respond to them.
AS TO FIFTEENTH COUNT (AGAINST MHI AND NERO)
1-30. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 of the
fifteenth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not
respond to them.
AS TO SIXTEENTH COUNT (AGAINST RE/MAX)
1-29. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 of the
sixteenth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not
respond to them.
SPECIAL DEFENSES AS TO COUNTS VI, VII, AND VIII
1. The plaintiffs’ claims are barred or diminished to the extent that they failed to
take proper and reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate their damages.
2. If the plaintiffs were damaged, either as alleged in their complaint or at all, such
damages were directly and proximately caused by their own comparative fault, and the plaintiffs’
recovery, if any, should be reduced in proportion to their comparative fault.
3. The plaintiffs’ tort-based claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine.
4. If the plaintiffs were damaged as alleged or at all, such damages were directly or
proximately caused by the comparative fault of others, whether or not parties to this action, and
plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, should be reduced in proportion to the comparative fault of those
others.
6
5. Plaintiffs’ recovery against defendant, if any, should be reduced or barred by any
settlement, judgment, or payments of any kind received from any other individual or entity in
connection with the subject matter of the incidents described in the plaintiffs’ complaint.
6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they failed to provide defendant with
required notice and an appropriate opportunity to cure any alleged defects.
7. Any claims against the defendant by the plaintiffs are barred by the doctrine of
spoliation, as it appears that specific portions of the work performed by the defendant have been
destroyed or significantly altered before defendant had an opportunity to conduct a full
investigation of any alleged defects in its work.
8. The defendant reserves the right to amend its answer and special defenses to
preserve such additional special defenses as may become available to him during the course of
investigation, discovery, or trial.
Respectfully submitted,
THE DEFENDANT,
KEGAN POLITZ
By His Attorney,
/s/ Patrick J. Markey
Patrick J. Markey, Esq.
Markey Barrett, P.C.
360 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 301
Windsor, CT 06095
Phone (860) 607-3265
Fax (413) 273-7361
Juris No.: 435739
E-mail: pmarkey@markeybarrett.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Patrick J. Markey, Esq., hereby certify that on this 24th day of January 2024, I served a
copy of the above upon the parties in this action by mailing or electronic delivery to counsel of
record:
7
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
Kevin M. Godbout
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
195 Church St., 13th Floor
New Haven, CT 06510
Email: kgodbout@npmlaw.com
COUNSEL FOR TOWN OF BRANFORD
Joshua Aaron Yahwak
Law Offices of Cynthia M. Garraty
P.O. Box 2903
Hartford, CT 06104
Email: jyahwak@travelers.com
ATTORNEY FOR MAGNIFIED HOME INSPECTIONS, LLC
Jack Gary Steigelfest
Howard Kohn Sprague & Fitzgerald
P.O. Box 261798
Hartford, CT 06126
Email: jgs@hksflaw.com
COUNSEL FOR LOUIS NERO, JR.
Jack Gary Steigelfest
Howard Kohn Sprague & Fitzgerald
P.O. Box 261798
Hartford, CT 06126
Email: jgs@hksflaw.com
/s//Patrick J. Markey
Patrick J. Markey, Esq.
8
Preview
DOCKET NO.: NNH-CV24-6138898-S: SUPERIOR COURT : CHANEY MOON AND L. FERNANDA : MOON A/K/A FERNANDA MOON : : V. : : MOBILAND, LLC, VEDRAN JOSIC, : MUNOZ MODERN, LLC, INVESTMENT : PROPERTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, : STEVEN COCHRANE, KEGAN : POLITZ ELECTRIC CONTRACTOR, : LLC, KEGAN POLITZ, IDEAL : J.D. OF HARTFORD ENVIRONMENTS, LLC, TOWN OF : BRANFORD, CALCAGNI REAL : AT HARTFORD ESTATE, INC., RALPH RICCIO, : MAGNIFIED HOME INSPECTIONS, : LLC, LOUIS NERO, JR., AND : SHORELINE REFERRAL GROUP, LLC : D/B/A RE/MAX ALLIANCE : JANUARY 24, 2024 ANSWER OF KEGAN POLITZ INDIVIDUALLY, AND SPECIAL DEFENSES AS TO FIRST COUNT (AGAINST MOBILAND AND JOSIC) 1-27. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-27 of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO SECOND COUNT (AGAINST MOBILAND AND JOSIC) 1-29. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 of the second count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO THIRD COUNT (AGAINST MOBILAND AND JOSIC) 1-29. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 of the third count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. 1 AS TO FOURTH COUNT (AGAINST MOBILAND AND JOSIC) 1-31. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-31 of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO SIXTH COUNT (AGAINST MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS) 1. Admitted. 2. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 3. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 4. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 5. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 6. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 7. Denied. 8. Denied. 9. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 10. Admitted. 11. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 2 12. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 13. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 14. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 15. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 16. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 17. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 18. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 19. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 20. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 21. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 22. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 3 23. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 24. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 25. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 26. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 27. The defendant has insufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief and therefore leaves the plaintiffs to their burden of proof. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. AS TO SEVENTH COUNT (AGAINST MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS) 1-27. The defendant repeats and restates its answers to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-27 of the sixth count and incorporates them herein as if set forth in full. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. AS TO EIGHTH COUNT (AGAINST MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS) 1-27. The defendant repeats and restates its answers to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-27 of the sixth count and incorporates them herein as if set forth in full. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 4 31. Denied. AS TO NINTH COUNT (AGAINST THE TOWN OF BRANFORD) 1-33. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33 of the ninth count of the Plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO TENTH COUNT (AGAINST TOWN OF BRANFORD) 1-33. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33 of the tenth count of the plaintiff’s complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO ELEVENTH COUNT (AGAINST TOWN OF BRANFORD) 1-34. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-34 of the eleventh count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO TWELFTH COUNT (AGAINST CALCAGNI AND RICCIO) 1-30. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 of the twelfth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO THIRTEENTH COUNT (AGAINST CALCAGNI AND RICCIO) 1-30. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 of the thirteenth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO FOURTEENTH COUNT (AGAINST CALCAGNI AND RICCIO) 5 1-31. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-31 of the fourteenth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO FIFTEENTH COUNT (AGAINST MHI AND NERO) 1-30. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 of the fifteenth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. AS TO SIXTEENTH COUNT (AGAINST RE/MAX) 1-29. The defendant states that the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-29 of the sixteenth count of the plaintiffs’ complaint do not pertain to him and accordingly that it need not respond to them. SPECIAL DEFENSES AS TO COUNTS VI, VII, AND VIII 1. The plaintiffs’ claims are barred or diminished to the extent that they failed to take proper and reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate their damages. 2. If the plaintiffs were damaged, either as alleged in their complaint or at all, such damages were directly and proximately caused by their own comparative fault, and the plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, should be reduced in proportion to their comparative fault. 3. The plaintiffs’ tort-based claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine. 4. If the plaintiffs were damaged as alleged or at all, such damages were directly or proximately caused by the comparative fault of others, whether or not parties to this action, and plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, should be reduced in proportion to the comparative fault of those others. 6 5. Plaintiffs’ recovery against defendant, if any, should be reduced or barred by any settlement, judgment, or payments of any kind received from any other individual or entity in connection with the subject matter of the incidents described in the plaintiffs’ complaint. 6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they failed to provide defendant with required notice and an appropriate opportunity to cure any alleged defects. 7. Any claims against the defendant by the plaintiffs are barred by the doctrine of spoliation, as it appears that specific portions of the work performed by the defendant have been destroyed or significantly altered before defendant had an opportunity to conduct a full investigation of any alleged defects in its work. 8. The defendant reserves the right to amend its answer and special defenses to preserve such additional special defenses as may become available to him during the course of investigation, discovery, or trial. Respectfully submitted, THE DEFENDANT, KEGAN POLITZ By His Attorney, /s/ Patrick J. Markey Patrick J. Markey, Esq. Markey Barrett, P.C. 360 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 301 Windsor, CT 06095 Phone (860) 607-3265 Fax (413) 273-7361 Juris No.: 435739 E-mail: pmarkey@markeybarrett.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Patrick J. Markey, Esq., hereby certify that on this 24th day of January 2024, I served a copy of the above upon the parties in this action by mailing or electronic delivery to counsel of record: 7 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS Kevin M. Godbout Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church St., 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Email: kgodbout@npmlaw.com COUNSEL FOR TOWN OF BRANFORD Joshua Aaron Yahwak Law Offices of Cynthia M. Garraty P.O. Box 2903 Hartford, CT 06104 Email: jyahwak@travelers.com ATTORNEY FOR MAGNIFIED HOME INSPECTIONS, LLC Jack Gary Steigelfest Howard Kohn Sprague & Fitzgerald P.O. Box 261798 Hartford, CT 06126 Email: jgs@hksflaw.com COUNSEL FOR LOUIS NERO, JR. Jack Gary Steigelfest Howard Kohn Sprague & Fitzgerald P.O. Box 261798 Hartford, CT 06126 Email: jgs@hksflaw.com /s//Patrick J. Markey Patrick J. Markey, Esq. 8