Mnc Retail Services Corp. v. Petzold, No. 59310 (Jul. 2, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Mnc Retail Services Corp. v. Petzold, No. 59310 (Jul. 2, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6338

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1992

DocketNo. 59310

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6338 (Mnc Retail Services Corp. v. Petzold, No. 59310 (Jul. 2, 1992)) 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

Mnc Retail Services Corp. v. Petzold, No. 59310 (Jul. 2, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6338 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, #134 I. FACTS

By order of the court, Arena, J., the plaintiff, Maryland National Bank ("MNB"), was substituted for the original plaintiff, MNC Retail Services Corporation, on June 15, 1992. See order, #133. MNB has filed an amended complaint, #133.01, and now moves for summary judgment thereon. The defendants, William J. Petzold, Jr. and William J. Petzold, Inc., have not filed a responsive pleading to the amended complaint.

II. DISCUSSION

"A motion for summary judgment may be filed by any party at any time, addressed to the claim or counter-claim, after the pleadings are closed as between the parties to the motion. Practice Book Sec. 379." (Emphasis added). Esposito v. Wethered, 4 Conn. App. 641, 644,49 A.2d 222 (1985)." Griggs v. B G Land, Inc., 24 Conn. App. 610,611-12, 590 A.2d 982 (1991). The court finds that the pleadings in this matter are not closed.

III. CONCLUSION

The court, in accordance with its finding CT Page 6339 discussed above, hereby denies the motion for summary judgment.

It is so ordered.

AUSTIN, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, #134 I. FACTS

By order of the court, Arena, J., the plaintiff, Maryland National Bank ("MNB"), was substituted for the original plaintiff, MNC Retail Services Corporation, on June 15, 1992. See order, #133. MNB has filed an amended complaint, #133.01, and now moves for summary judgment thereon. The defendants, William J. Petzold, Jr. and William J. Petzold, Inc., have not filed a responsive pleading to the amended complaint.

II. DISCUSSION

"A motion for summary judgment may be filed by any party at any time, addressed to the claim or counter-claim, after the pleadings are closed as between the parties to the motion. Practice Book Sec. 379." (Emphasis added). Esposito v. Wethered, 4 Conn. App. 641, 644,49 A.2d 222 (1985)." Griggs v. B G Land, Inc., 24 Conn. App. 610,611-12, 590 A.2d 982 (1991). The court finds that the pleadings in this matter are not closed.

III. CONCLUSION

The court, in accordance with its finding CT Page 6339 discussed above, hereby denies the motion for summary judgment.

It is so ordered.

AUSTIN, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mnc-retail-services-corp-v-petzold-no-59310-jul-2-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

II. DISCUSSION

III. CONCLUSION

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack