Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)

Citation
Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
Parent Document
Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316 (2000)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2000-04-18

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text

842 chars
“Contracts clauses which require the application of the laws of other states upon breach or dispute are recognized as proper in Connecticut.” Syncsort, Inc. v. Indata Services, 14 Conn. App. 481, 484, 541 A.2d 543, *322cert. denied, 209 Conn. 804, 548 A.2d 443 (1988). Accordingly, we are guided by Massachusetts substantive law in deciding the plaintiffs claims concerning the promissory note and the lease. We note, however, that although we apply the substantive law of Massachusetts to decide these claims, the appropriate standard of review is a procedural issue and is governed by Connecticut law. See State v. Diaz, 226 Conn. 514, 557, 628 A.2d 567 (1993) (Berdon, J., dissenting), citing Clisham v. Board of Police Commissioners, 223 Conn. 354, 370, 613 A.2d 254 (1992); Burton v. Burton, 189 Conn. 129, 139 n.8, 454 A.2d 1282 (1983).