· 10/25/2022

Randolph v. Mambrino

Citations

  • 216 Conn. App. 126

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 52-595), if a person fraudulently conceals the existence of a cause of action, that cause of action shall be deemed to accrue against such person when the person entitled to bring an action thereon first discovers its existence. The petitioner, who had been convicted, on a guilty plea, of various crimes in connection with his role in an armed robbery, filed a petition for a new trial, claiming that he was entitled to a new trial because several newly discovered letters written by an individual named ''Iris S.'' con- tained evidence establishing his innocence and that the respondents, a senior assistant state's attorney and the state of Connecticut, had possession of the letters and knowledge of their contents at the time of his guilty plea but purposefully failed to disclose them to him. The respondents asserted as a special defense that the petition was time barred because it was not filed within the applicable three year statute of limitations (§ 52-582). The petitioner filed an amended petition for a new trial claiming, inter alia, that the limitation period was tolled by § 52-595 as a result of the respondents' fraudulent concealment of the letters. Thereafter, the respondents filed a motion for summary judg- ment, arguing that there was no dispute between the parties that the petition was untimely under § 52-582 and that the petitioner's tolling claim failed as a matter of law because he had not adduced facts suffi- cient to permit a finding of fraudulent concealment. The trial court granted the motion and rendered summary judgment in favor of the respondents. In reaching its decision, the court, relying on Turner v. State (172 Conn. App. 352), and Fichera v. Mine Hill Corp. (207 Conn. 204), concluded that the limitation period set forth in § 52-582 is jurisdic- tional in nature and, therefore, not subject to the tolling provision of § 52-595. Thereafter, the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held: 1. C

Judges: Alvord; Elgo; Palmer

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.