Hartnett v. David, No. Cv94 0142664 (Jul. 6, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hartnett v. David, No. Cv94 0142664 (Jul. 6, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7522

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 6, 1995

DocketNo. CV94 0142664

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7522 (Hartnett v. David, No. Cv94 0142664 (Jul. 6, 1995)) 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

Hartnett v. David, No. Cv94 0142664 (Jul. 6, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7522 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant's motion to dismiss (#101) the plaintiff's complaint is granted. Failure to return process in accordance with the provisions of General Statutes § 52-46a renders an action subject to dismissal. Rogozinski v. American Food ServiceEquipment Corp., 211 Conn. 431, 559 A.2d 1110 (1989). Regarding the plaintiff's request to amend the return date (#103), General Statutes § 52-72 is inapplicable because the late return of process does not suffice to make the return date "defective" within the meaning of the statute. See Compo Bros., Inc. v. City of Stamford,12 Conn. L. Rptr. 679 (November 6, 1994, Lewis, J.). Furthermore, the plaintiff's requested return date of January 3, 1995 falls more than two months after the date of process, September 29, 1994, CT Page 7523 thereby violating General Statutes § 52-48. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to amend the return date is denied.

LEWIS, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant's motion to dismiss (#101) the plaintiff's complaint is granted. Failure to return process in accordance with the provisions of General Statutes § 52-46a renders an action subject to dismissal. Rogozinski v. American Food ServiceEquipment Corp., 211 Conn. 431, 559 A.2d 1110 (1989). Regarding the plaintiff's request to amend the return date (#103), General Statutes § 52-72 is inapplicable because the late return of process does not suffice to make the return date "defective" within the meaning of the statute. See Compo Bros., Inc. v. City of Stamford,12 Conn. L. Rptr. 679 (November 6, 1994, Lewis, J.). Furthermore, the plaintiff's requested return date of January 3, 1995 falls more than two months after the date of process, September 29, 1994, CT Page 7523 thereby violating General Statutes § 52-48. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to amend the return date is denied.

LEWIS, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartnett-v-david-no-cv94-0142664-jul-6-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack