Skip to main content
· 5/11/2021

Disturco v. Gates in New Canaan, LLC

Citations

  • 204 Conn. App. 526

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sus- tained as a result of the defendant's negligence, arising out of an incident in which she became trapped in a restaurant restroom and one of the defendant's employees attempted to force the door open, causing a piece of wood to strike and injure her. The defendant's registered agent for service was served with the summons and complaint, but the defen- dant did not file an appearance until nine months later, after it had been defaulted for failure to appear and the trial court had rendered judgment on the default and awarded damages to the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion to open the judgment, claiming that its failure to appear was the result of mistake in that it had notified its insurance broker of the underlying matter but that the broker did not notify the defendant's insurance company until after the judgment had been rendered. The court denied the defendant's motion to open the judgment, concluding that the defendant failed to meet the provisions of the applicable statute (§ 52-212) and, thereafter, granted the defendant's motion to reargue the motion to open but reaffirmed the denial of the motion to open, and the defendant appealed. Held: 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to open the judgment and finding that there was no reasonable cause for the defendant's failure to appear; the defendant did not file an appearance until nine months after it properly received notice of the action, and the court concluded that the defendant's action in sending the summons and complaint to its insurance broker under the assump- tion that the broker would inform its insurance company to hire an attorney constituted negligence on the part of the defendant rather than a mistake or other reasonable cause required by § 52-212. 2. The defendant could not prevail on its claim that it was entitled under the rules of practice (§ 11-12 (c)) to a hearing a

Judges: Elgo; Moll; DiPentima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.