Groton Open Space Association

Ravenswood Lawyer To Face Second Deposition In Merritt Case

NEW LONDON–A Superior Court judge granted on Dec. 15, 2003, a motion by F.L. Merritt Inc. to compel an attorney for Ravenswood Construction LLC to answer questions about Ravenswood’s courtroom allegations that Merritt acted in bad faith and committed fraud in land negotiations with Ravenswood.

Ravenswood had filed suit April 15, 2003, to prevent F.L. Merritt from selling a 75-acre property atop Fort Hill in Groton to the Groton Open Space Association. GOSA has a signed contract with Merritt, dated April 14, 2003, to buy the land, but Ravenswood argues that Ravenswood had a prior valid purchase agreement.

Judge D. Michael Hurley on Dec. 15 ordered that Ravenswood attorney James Miele answer the questions at a second deposition, which is to be carried out within two weeks. In a previous deposition, on Oct. 16, 2003, Mr. Miele was advised by his attorney, Paul Geraghty, not to reply to questions about the accusations. Mr. Geraghty had objected to the questions, saying they had “nothing to do with the underlying merits of this case.” However, Merritt Attorney William Kroll contended that the questions not only were relevant but had to be answered at the deposition because Ravenswood had agreed prior to the deposition that objections, except as to form, would be reserved for the time of trial.

Mr. Geraghty had made the accusations of bad faith and fraud May 27, 2003, at a hearing before Judge Hurley on Merritt’s motion for a summary judgment against Ravenswood. Mr. Miele was sitting next to Mr. Geraghty at the table for Ravenswood’s lawyers when the accusations were made. Mr. Miele at the time was acting both as a lawyer and a witness for Ravenswood. He sat silent while Mr. Geraghty raised the issues of bad faith and fraud. The accusations appeared to form the basis for Judge Hurley’s dismissal of the motion.

Mr. Geraghty again charged bad faith Dec. 8, 2003, at a Superior Court hearing on a second Merritt motion for summary judgment, which also was dismissed, by Judge Elaine Gordon, who said the case involves still-unclear issues.

At the Dec. 15 hearing, Merritt’s attorney, Mr. Kroll, argued that Merritt has the right to get its questions about the accusations answered because Mr. Geraghty has persisted in making the accusations in court, even though he has separately contended that they are irrelevant to the underlying issues of the case. Judge Hurley denied Merritt’s request that Ravenswood pay costs of the second deposition. Judge Hurley earlier had told Mr. Geraghty that the questions needed to be answered and that the court would decide whether the answers were relevant.