M&S Lawyers Obtain Pre-Judgment Remedy Attaching Defendant’s Assets in the Amount of $450,000
What the Case Involved: Marks & Sokolov successfully represented Plaintiff Tatiana Panchenkova, the former wife of Russian oligarch Defendant Shalva Chigirinsky in obtaining a pre-judgment remedy of $450,000 on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and false imprisonment in Connecticut.
Marks & Sokolov argued that Plaintiff, who alleged she was physically abused by Chigirinsky on numerous occasions between 2001 and 2012, established probable case that judgment will be rendered in her favor. The Court ordered the attachment of $450,000 of Chigirinsky’s assets which he secured by posting a bond.
Result: Following a three day evidentiary hearing and detailed testimony, Judge Genuario found probable cause the Plaintiff will prevail on her tort claims. Plaintiff testified and produced medical records that from 2001 to 2012, Chigirinsky assaulted her on many occasions, hitting her body and head, causing severe injuries. Plaintiff was repeatedly hospitalized and suffered severe concussions. She also testified she suffered a miscarriage as a result of one beating. Plaintiff also presented the testimony of a clinical psychologist, who testified the Plaintiff was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The Court found Plaintiff’s evidence credible; under cross-examination, Chigirinsky admitted a brutal beating which took place in Moscow in 2001, which Plaintiff established with photographs taken when she was hospitalized.
Because the alleged incidents took place in Russia, France, and the United States, the Court reviewed affidavits of legal experts on Russian and French law, determining that tort claims of assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment would be actionable in France and Russia and that the substantive law of these countries would apply to the respective incidents that occurred in those countries. The Court further concluded that Connecticut’s three year statute of limitations would generally apply. Finally, the Court found the statute of limitations would not bar Plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress as Plaintiff had met her burden of probable cause that she will be able to establish that Chigirinsky’s conduct represents a “continuing course of conduct” under Connecticut leading case Watts v. Chittenden, 301 Conn. 575 (2011), with incidents occurring at least every three years from 2001 through 2012.
Bruce S. Marks and Maria Grechishkina served as lead counsel for Plaintiff.
Tatiana Panchenkova v. Shalva Chigirinsky, Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Case No. 126015797 S.