Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Pellegrino Law Firm
Firm Juris No. 045876 · New Haven Judicial District · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (33 contested cases) — treat the rates below 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) | 33 | A modest-volume, single-attorney shop |
| Home turf | New Haven (NNH): 26, then Ansonia/Milford (AAN: 3), Middlesex (MMX: 2), Hartford (HHD: 1), Waterbury (UWY: 1) | New Haven is their court |
| Side they take | 22 plaintiff / 11 defendant | Files first about two-thirds of the time — they tend to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 3.36 | A motion-active practice, but not extreme |
| Contested-motion win rate | Not reported — only 43 decided motions in the record, too small a sample to publish a reliable rate | See Methodology |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jane Grossman (18), then Griffin (8), Goodrow (7), Grasso Egan (7) | They know the New Haven bench |
Bottom line: a single-attorney New Haven family practice that files first more often than not and tends to use continuances, discovery motions, and contempt motions. With a small sample, this reads as a scouting hypothesis rather than a settled profile. The defining features of this profile are its focus on procedure and its volume of filings.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is a combination of timeline control, discovery motions, and contempt motions. Three rates define them:
- 1.24 continuances per case (41 total) — the most frequent single filing in the file. The timeline often stretches; delay appears to be a default rather than an exception.
- 1.03 discovery motions per case (34 total) — a high rate of discovery motions for a firm this size, which tends to make the process itself a focus of the litigation before the merits are reached.
- 0.91 contempt motions per case (30 total — 14 post-judgment, 7 general) — contempt motions appear here as a routine filing rather than a last resort. Allegations that an opposing party violated an order are common in this firm's cases.
Add 0.39 modification motions per case (13) and 0.27 counsel-fee requests per case (9), and the picture is a firm whose filings cluster around the clock, the discovery file, and the compliance record.
The filing volume — and where it concentrates
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~18.5 filings on the docket per case. The volume is not evenly distributed:
- Filing counts are far higher against unrepresented opponents. Against a pro-se opponent: 24.4 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 10.4/case. A self-represented spouse appears in the record facing well over twice the paper load of one with a lawyer.
- The highest filing counts on record — all in cases against self-represented opponents:
- Gladue v. Kloc (NNH-FA22-6122543-S) — 112 filings (the firm's all-time high; pro se opponent)
- Sires v. Halaszynski (NNH-FA19-6097755-S) — 60 filings (pro se)
- Stanley v. Stanley (NNH-FA17-6070098-S) — 34 filings (pro se)
- Simmons v. Simmons (NNH-FA22-5053592-S) — 33 filings (pro se)
- Balandi Turan v. Turan (NNH-FA22-5053113-S) — 27 filings (pro se)
The data shows that self-represented opponents are associated with the firm's highest filing counts. The procedural-options section below describes the rules and tools that relate to that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 40 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite | 18 | Sets interim terms early |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 14 | Reopens after judgment; builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Contempt | 7 | Puts the other party on defense |
| Motion for Order | 6 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 4 | Service / procedural |
| Motion to Compel | 2 | Discovery dispute |
| Motion to Approve Arbitration Agreement — Family | 2 | Steers process off the docket |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in only 3% of their cases (1 of 33), and the firm moves for GAL appointment just once in the record. On this sample, GAL involvement is the exception, not a signature lever.
- No reportable pattern of repeat GAL pairings emerges from the data.
Context: when a GAL is appointed, the appointment order can define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline. An unscoped GAL appointment is an open-ended cost and an open-ended commitment regardless of how often a firm uses one — the appointment order is the document that defines those limits.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (18 rulings) more than any other judge, then Griffin (8), Goodrow (7), and Grasso Egan (7). Familiarity with the New Haven bench is part of their edge. A self-represented opponent's knowledge of the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice is what narrows that familiarity gap.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a firm whose record emphasizes continuances and contempt motions, the following describes the patterns above and the procedural tools and rules that relate to each. This is descriptive information about how the process works, not a recommendation for any case.
- The clock. Continuances are this firm's single most frequent filing (1.24/case, 40 filed). 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. Each requested delay is something the requesting party must justify to the court.
- Discovery motions. At 1.03 discovery motions per case, motions to compel are common in this firm's record. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for a motion to compel or for sanctions; a documented, timely response is what the record reflects as compliance.
- Contempt motions. With 0.91 contempt motions per case — and post-judgment contempt the third-most-common filing (14) — contempt motions appear frequently, including after judgment. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with each order (payments, exchanges, communications) is the evidentiary basis on which a contempt allegation is assessed. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents reflects on the moving party before a judge they appear before frequently.
- Pendente lite orders. Motions for orders before judgment (18) are how interim terms are set early in a case. Pendente lite hearings are where those interim terms are decided, and interim orders tend to harden into the status quo as the case proceeds.
- The represented-vs-pro-se gap. Self-represented opponents are associated with 24.4 filings/case versus 10.4 for represented ones. The procedural rules apply equally regardless of representation; the assigned judge's standing orders define the motion practice a party operates within. Paper volume and the merits of a filing are distinct considerations on the docket.
- Process versus merits. This firm's defining feature is its volume of procedural filings — clock, discovery, compliance. The substantive questions in a family case (custody, support, division) are decided on the merits. A short, documented, merits-focused record is one way those substantive questions reach the front of a case.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). With only 43 of this firm's filed motions recording a decided outcome, the contested-motion win rate is treated as too small a sample to report as a reliable percentage. 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.