Levy v. Levy

Connecticut Appellate Court

Levy v. Levy

539 A.2d 1042, 14 Conn. App. 801, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 105

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1988

Docket5777

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 539 A.2d 1042 (Levy v. Levy) 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

Levy v. Levy, 539 A.2d 1042, 14 Conn. App. 801, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 105 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Our review of the record in this appeal indicates that the only question properly before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant both the plaintiffs and the defendant’s motions to open the judgment in this action to dissolve their marriage.

The plaintiff appealed and the defendant cross-appealed from the trial court’s denial of their respective motions to open the judgment. Subsequently, we denied the parties’ later motions for permission to amend their jurisdictional statements to include review of the underlying judgment rendered by the trial court. We also denied both parties’ motions to reconsider our decision denying their motions for permission to amend.

[802]*802Nothing in the record, transcripts and briefs supports any contention that, in denying the parties’ motions to open the judgment, the trial court abused its discretion. See, e.g., Viglione Sheet Metal Co. v. Sakonchick, 190 Conn. 707, 711, 462 A.2d 1037 (1983); Lamont v. New Hartford, 4 Conn. App. 303, 307, 493 A.2d 298 (1985). Where the exercise of judicial discretion is called upon, its exercise will not ordinarily be interfered with on appeal. Sturman v. Socha, 191 Conn. 1, 7, 463 A.2d 527 (1983); Montanaro Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Snow, 4 Conn. App. 46, 54, 492 A.2d 223 (1985).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

Our review of the record in this appeal indicates that the only question properly before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant both the plaintiffs and the defendant’s motions to open the judgment in this action to dissolve their marriage.

The plaintiff appealed and the defendant cross-appealed from the trial court’s denial of their respective motions to open the judgment. Subsequently, we denied the parties’ later motions for permission to amend their jurisdictional statements to include review of the underlying judgment rendered by the trial court. We also denied both parties’ motions to reconsider our decision denying their motions for permission to amend.

[802]*802Nothing in the record, transcripts and briefs supports any contention that, in denying the parties’ motions to open the judgment, the trial court abused its discretion. See, e.g., Viglione Sheet Metal Co. v. Sakonchick, 190 Conn. 707, 711, 462 A.2d 1037 (1983); Lamont v. New Hartford, 4 Conn. App. 303, 307, 493 A.2d 298 (1985). Where the exercise of judicial discretion is called upon, its exercise will not ordinarily be interfered with on appeal. Sturman v. Socha, 191 Conn. 1, 7, 463 A.2d 527 (1983); Montanaro Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Snow, 4 Conn. App. 46, 54, 492 A.2d 223 (1985).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 A.2d 1042, 14 Conn. App. 801, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-levy-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack