Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Maluszewski Law LLC
Firm Juris No. 051769 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (49 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.
What this is. A data-driven scouting report on how this firm litigates contested divorce and custody cases. Every number below is computed from the firm's own filing history across the public CT family-court docket. This is a litigation-pattern analysis of public records — not legal advice, and not a claim about any individual case. Patterns describe tendencies, not guarantees.
This is general information about public litigation patterns — not legal advice, and not a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.
Snapshot
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 49 | A modest-volume but active contested-divorce practice |
| Home turf | New Britain (HHB): 41, then Hartford (3), Waterbury (3) | The HHB courthouse is overwhelmingly their court |
| Side they take | 27 plaintiff / 22 defendant | A near-even split, leaning slightly toward filing first |
| Motions per case | 6.59 | A motion-heavy, pressure-oriented style |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 92.4% (105 decided motions with an outcome) | When they put a contested motion in front of a judge, it lands almost every time |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Susan Connors (34), then Armata (24), Abery-Wetstone (22) | They appear before the HHB bench constantly |
Bottom line: a one-attorney shop concentrated in a single courthouse that files heavily and is granted most of what it puts to a judge. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the patterns that distinguish it most are focus, the use of the record, and procedure.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is clock control + discovery pressure + contempt. Three numbers define them:
- 2.51 continuances per case (123 total) — continuances are the most frequent single move in the firm's filing history, by a wide margin. The timeline tends to move on this firm's calendar.
- 2.10 discovery motions per case (103 total) — discovery is a recurring focus of the firm's filings. The effect is to make the process lengthy and costly well before the merits are reached.
- 0.96 contempt motions per case (47 total — 20 general, 14 post-judgment, 8 pendente lite) — contempt is a routine filing in this firm's practice, not a last resort. Allegations of order violations recur, often more than once across a contested case.
Add 0.55 modification mentions and 0.53 counsel-fee mentions per case and the full picture emerges: an extended timeline, recurring discovery and contempt filings, and the cost of litigation kept consistently in view for the other party.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~21.7 filings on the docket per case. And the volume is not evenly distributed:
- Represented opponents draw more paper than self-represented ones here. Against a represented opponent: 24.46 filings/case. Against a pro-se opponent: 18.57/case. The firm's filing volume rises when there is a lawyer on the other side — but an unrepresented spouse still faces roughly 19 filings per case, a heavy load for someone without counsel.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Cyr v. Cyr (HHD-FA15-6059926-S) — 101 firm-side filings (the firm's all-time high); Perduta v. Perduta (HHB-FA15-6030488-S) — 50 (opponent pro se); Zdankiewicz v. Zdankiewicz (HHB-FA20-6062440-S) — 50; Myers v. Myers (NNH-FA24-6140068-S) — 43; Cipriano v. Sadowska (UWY-FA16-4036005-S) — 42.
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Perduta v. Perduta (HHB-FA15-6030488-S) — 50 filings; Gonzalez v. Gonzalez (HHB-FA16-6033748-S) — 36; Wiacek v. Wiacek (HHB-FA17-6039977-S) — 32; Zotti v. Jones (HHB-FA18-6042391-S) — 28; Urban v. Phillips (HHB-FA19-5025661-S) — 25. Dozens of filings directed at a party with no attorney.
This is the core of the attrition pattern: the docket itself carries the pressure. Whether a party is self-represented or has counsel, the paper volume tends to be a consistent feature of this firm's practice rather than a coincidence of any single case. The procedural options described below correspond to exactly that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 120 | Controls the clock — their single most common move |
| Motion for Order | 28 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Contempt | 20 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment (PL) | 17 | Locks in pendente-lite terms early |
| Motion to Compel | 15 | Discovery focus — frequent opening filing |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 14 | Keeps the pressure on after the case "ends" |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 11 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
| Motion for Counsel Fees | 5 | Fee leverage |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 14.3% of their cases (7 of 49), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment 11 times (25 GAL-appointment markers across the set). GALs feature as a custody lever in this firm's filings, not a neutral afterthought.
- The sample does not show the firm leaning on any identifiable recurring roster of the same guardians ad litem; GAL involvement here is best read by rate, not by repeat pairings.
What this means procedurally: when a GAL is proposed, the proposed name's prior pairings with a firm are a matter of public record that a party can review. An appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline; an unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk, which is why scope is commonly addressed in the order itself.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Susan Connors (34 appearances) more than any other judge, then Armata (24), Abery-Wetstone (22), Dolan (18), and Caron (17). Their high contested-motion grant rate is partly familiarity — concentrated in the HHB courthouse, they know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and pet peeves. A self-represented opponent who learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice narrows that familiarity gap.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a motion-heavy attrition practice, the relevant information is which procedural tools and rules correspond to each observed pattern above. Six patterns, with the neutral procedural facts that attach to each:
- The clock. Continuances are this firm's single most frequent filing (120 filed; 2.51 per case). A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner; continuances can be opposed on the record. These are the procedural mechanics that bear on the timeline of a case.
- Discovery. The firm files discovery motions frequently (2.10 per case; motions to compel are a recurring opener). Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions; documented, timely responses are reflected on the record. A protective motion is the procedural tool available when a discovery demand is overbroad.
- Contempt. With nearly one contempt motion per case (47 total — including 14 post-judgment), contempt filings recur in this firm's practice, sometimes after judgment. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion that is not supported by the documents fails on the record.
- Docket volume. The firm files more against represented opponents (24.46 vs 18.57 per case), and its heaviest cases run to 50–101 filings. This firm's volume is its defining feature. A focused record — fewer filings, each substantiated — produces a contrast on the docket that the court can observe; filing volume on one side does not require matching volume on the other.
- GAL scope. A GAL appears in about one in seven of this firm's cases, and the firm moves for appointment 11 times. When a GAL is proposed, a party can review the proposed name's public history, and the appointment order is where scope, budget, and reporting deadlines are typically defined.
- The merits. This firm's model emphasizes the process, and with a 92.4% grant rate on decided motions, contested motions it files are usually granted. A short, merits-focused record is the structural counterpart to a high-volume process. The substantive questions (custody, support, division) are decided on their own record, and a tight, documented file is what keeps the focus there.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Grant rate" = Granted ÷ (Granted + Denied) on the firm's own filed motions where the docket records an outcome; many entries record no outcome and are excluded, and with a limited sample this rate is indicative rather than definitive. Marker counts use keyword matching on docket event descriptions and may include related sub-types. Firm-name aggregation follows the docket's recorded firm name (the source truncates long names). Patterns reflect aggregate history, not the conduct of any one attorney or the merits of any one case.