Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. CV 05-4007041S See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. DAISY TORRES v. KERSHNER COMPANY ET AL. ORDER CORRADINO, J.T.R. The court enters the following judgment. 1.) $5,000 for the return of the deposit. 2.) $10,000 representing double the deposit pursuant to § 52-264 of the General Statutes. 3.) Interest on the amount of $3,000 to January 13, 2011 at 10% for a total of $3,000 pursuant to § 37-3a of the General Statutes. 4.) Costs on the amount of 5.) Attorneys fees in the amount of $6,000. The court awards the fee on the contingency fee claim but not on the basis of the CUTPA violation, which would have been for $10,640. The court does not in any way question the hours spent by defense counsel or the fee rate and this was not contested. But, having reread my decision, it would be unnecessarily punitive to make such an award in light of the fact that it has already doubled damages under § 52-264. Or to put it another way the policy objective sought to be achieved by allowing double damages under this statute was the basis of the court's ruling that a CUTPA violation should be found. Permitting such an award under § 52-264 is incentive enough to bring such an action under that statute or CUTPA since it increases the amount of any contingency fee. The court not having awarded punitive fees under CUTPA cannot fairly award attorneys fees beyond the contingency fee.