Croce v. Gaynor

Connecticut Appellate Court

Croce v. Gaynor

510 A.2d 1019, 8 Conn. App. 105, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1043

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJuly 8, 1986

Docket4304

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 510 A.2d 1019 (Croce v. Gaynor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Croce v. Gaynor, 510 A.2d 1019, 8 Conn. App. 105, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1043 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff takes this appeal from the judgment rendered upon the trial court’s dismissal of his medical malpractice action pursuant to Practice Book § 251.

This case appeared on the dormancy list pursuant to Practice Book § 251. A notice of such list was sent to the plaintiff’s counsel and it contained the direction that “COUNSEL ARE NOT REQUIRED TO APPEAR AT THE CALL OF CASES EXCEPT TO REQUEST AN EXEMPTION FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE . . . COURT ORDER,” and a warning that these cases will be dismissed “unless they are withdrawn, disposed of by final judgment, claimed to a trial list, or exempted for a good cause.”

The plaintiff did not appear at the call of the dormant cases on the assigned day to request an exemption. Nor did he request an exemption thereafter despite the fact that he had three months within which to do so. In addition, after the case was dismissed, he never moved to set aside the dismissal.

Our review of the record and briefs indicates that the plaintiff’s claim that the court erred in dismissing this action pursuant to Practice Book § 251 is without merit.

There is no error.

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