Biondi v. Biondi, No. Cv99 064967s (Dec. 6, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Biondi v. Biondi, No. Cv99 064967s (Dec. 6, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15748

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 6, 1999

DocketNo. CV99 064967S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15748 (Biondi v. Biondi, No. Cv99 064967s (Dec. 6, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Biondi v. Biondi, No. Cv99 064967s (Dec. 6, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15748 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION (Motion for Summary Judgment #108) The plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant toConnecticut General Statutes § 17-44 through § 17-49. The purpose of summary judgment is to expeditiously dispose of, without trial, cases where no genuine factual issues exist. Mac's CarCity, Inc. v. American National Bank, 205 Conn. 255, 261 (1987). The court is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather, to determine whether any such issues exist. Nolan v. Borkowski,206 Conn. 495, 500 (1988). "[S]ummary judgment . . . is especially ill-adapted to negligence cases where . . . the ultimate issue in contention involves a mixed question of fact and law, and requires the trier of fact to determine whether the standard of care was met in specific situation." Pine PointCorporation v. Westport Bank and Trust Co., 164 Conn. 54, 55-56 (1922).

The documentary evidence and affidavits provided by parties in this matter indicates that there remain genuine issues of material fact. Summary deposition is ill-suited to the case, due to mixed questions of law and fact in a negligence action such as this.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

THE COURT

by ARNOLD, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION (Motion for Summary Judgment #108) The plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant toConnecticut General Statutes § 17-44 through § 17-49. The purpose of summary judgment is to expeditiously dispose of, without trial, cases where no genuine factual issues exist. Mac's CarCity, Inc. v. American National Bank, 205 Conn. 255, 261 (1987). The court is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather, to determine whether any such issues exist. Nolan v. Borkowski,206 Conn. 495, 500 (1988). "[S]ummary judgment . . . is especially ill-adapted to negligence cases where . . . the ultimate issue in contention involves a mixed question of fact and law, and requires the trier of fact to determine whether the standard of care was met in specific situation." Pine PointCorporation v. Westport Bank and Trust Co., 164 Conn. 54, 55-56 (1922).

The documentary evidence and affidavits provided by parties in this matter indicates that there remain genuine issues of material fact. Summary deposition is ill-suited to the case, due to mixed questions of law and fact in a negligence action such as this.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

THE COURT

by ARNOLD, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biondi-v-biondi-no-cv99-064967s-dec-6-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack