Skip to main content

Larobina v. Kadar, No. Cv970162236s (Aug. 8, 2001)

Conn. Super. Ct.August 8, 2001No. No. CV 97 0162236 S
Defendant WinRonald Kadar
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
ADAMS, JUDGE.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
bench trial

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationBreach of Contract

Outcome

The court ruled in favor of Deputy Sheriff Kadar, finding his actions in serving the eviction writ and leaving plaintiff's possessions in the landlord's custody were lawful and appropriate, given the change in Connecticut law effective October 1, 1997. Plaintiff's claims for wrongful seizure, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and other damages were dismissed.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules Against Worker in Eviction Dispute** This case involved a dispute between a tenant named Larobina and Deputy Sheriff Ronald Kadar over how an eviction was carried out. Larobina was evicted from their home and claimed that Deputy Sheriff Kadar wrongfully seized their belongings and handled the eviction improperly. Larobina sued Kadar for wrongful actions, claiming the deputy sheriff was negligent and misrepresented facts during the eviction process. The court ruled in favor of Deputy Sheriff Kadar, finding that he followed proper legal procedures when carrying out the eviction. The court determined that Kadar's actions were lawful and appropriate under Connecticut law, particularly noting that the law had changed as of October 1, 1997. All of Larobina's claims were dismissed, and no damages were awarded. **What this means for workers:** This case shows that government officials like deputy sheriffs generally have legal protection when they follow proper procedures in carrying out their official duties. If you face an eviction, it's important to understand that the officers executing the eviction are typically protected by law as long as they follow established legal processes, even if you disagree with the outcome.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.