Cimmino v. Monsarrat, No. Cv 92 0058575 (Aug. 18, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Cimmino v. Monsarrat, No. Cv 92 0058575 (Aug. 18, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8310

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 18, 1994

DocketNo. CV 92 0058575

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8310 (Cimmino v. Monsarrat, No. Cv 92 0058575 (Aug. 18, 1994)) 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

Cimmino v. Monsarrat, No. Cv 92 0058575 (Aug. 18, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8310 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff's sole argument as stated at the August 16, 1994 hearing on motion for summary judgment was that a question of fact exists as to whether the defendant Monsarrat treated the plaintiff on January 21, 1989.

The defendant submitted an affidavit stating that he has not treated or had any contact with the plaintiff since August 28, 1987.

The plaintiff submitted no affidavit, and relies on his uncertified deposition testimony. Therefore, the plaintiff has not submitted any appropriate documentation to raise a genuine issue of fact. The deposition testimony submitted by the plaintiff is not properly certified and therefore should not be considered on a motion for summary judgment. See Conn. Practice Book, Section 380; Perry LaFerriere v. Cicero Booker,9 CSCR 173, (February 21, 1994); Balderston v. ShoalsConstruction, Inc., 9 Conn. Law Reporter 343, 344 (July 1, 1993); Gough v. Town of Fairfield, 7 Conn. Law Reporter 50 (July 9, 1992); Carroll v. Topolski, 4 Conn. Law Reporter, 658 (September 12, 1991); Arisien v.Matty's Paving, Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury (March 29, 1994), Sullivan, J.

If the plaintiff claims he was treated or examined by Dr. Monsarrat on January 21, 1989, why hasn't he submitted an affidavit so stating?

The defendant Monsarrat's motion for summary judgment is granted.

RICHARD A. WALSH, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Plaintiff's sole argument as stated at the August 16, 1994 hearing on motion for summary judgment was that a question of fact exists as to whether the defendant Monsarrat treated the plaintiff on January 21, 1989.

The defendant submitted an affidavit stating that he has not treated or had any contact with the plaintiff since August 28, 1987.

The plaintiff submitted no affidavit, and relies on his uncertified deposition testimony. Therefore, the plaintiff has not submitted any appropriate documentation to raise a genuine issue of fact. The deposition testimony submitted by the plaintiff is not properly certified and therefore should not be considered on a motion for summary judgment. See Conn. Practice Book, Section 380; Perry LaFerriere v. Cicero Booker,9 CSCR 173, (February 21, 1994); Balderston v. ShoalsConstruction, Inc., 9 Conn. Law Reporter 343, 344 (July 1, 1993); Gough v. Town of Fairfield, 7 Conn. Law Reporter 50 (July 9, 1992); Carroll v. Topolski, 4 Conn. Law Reporter, 658 (September 12, 1991); Arisien v.Matty's Paving, Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury (March 29, 1994), Sullivan, J.

If the plaintiff claims he was treated or examined by Dr. Monsarrat on January 21, 1989, why hasn't he submitted an affidavit so stating?

The defendant Monsarrat's motion for summary judgment is granted.

RICHARD A. WALSH, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cimmino-v-monsarrat-no-cv-92-0058575-aug-18-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack