Pagano v. Leclerc, No. 116422 (Nov. 22, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Pagano v. Leclerc, No. 116422 (Nov. 22, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10095

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1993

DocketNo. 116422

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10095 (Pagano v. Leclerc, No. 116422 (Nov. 22, 1993)) 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

Pagano v. Leclerc, No. 116422 (Nov. 22, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10095 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint, counterclaim cross claim, prayer for relief, answer or special defense. Practice Book 152; Deutsche Bank Co. v. Hermann, 4 CSCR 771 (september ([September] 28, 1989, Cioffi, J.). A disclosure of defense is not a pleading listed in 152 and, therefore, may not be challenged with a motion to strike. Dohn v. Simone, 8 CSCR 879 (July 20, 1993, Lewis, J.); Deutsche Bank Co. v. Hermann, supra, 772, see also Burns v. Bennett, 220 Conn. 162,167 n. 7, 595 A.2d 877 (1991), citing Jennings v. Parsons,71 Conn. 413, 42 A. 76 (1899). If a party "`has disclosed as required, and satisfied the court of his belief and good faith and intention to make the defense, then the truth or the legal sufficiency of it should be left to be tried and determined in the ordinary and regular way.'" Cardello v. Brennan,6 Conn. L. Rptr. 492 (May 29, 1992, Pickett, J.) quoting Jennings v. Parsons, supra, 417-18.

The plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' disclosure of defense is denied. CT Page 10096

/s/ Sylvester SYLVESTER, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint, counterclaim cross claim, prayer for relief, answer or special defense. Practice Book 152; Deutsche Bank Co. v. Hermann, 4 CSCR 771 (september ([September] 28, 1989, Cioffi, J.). A disclosure of defense is not a pleading listed in 152 and, therefore, may not be challenged with a motion to strike. Dohn v. Simone, 8 CSCR 879 (July 20, 1993, Lewis, J.); Deutsche Bank Co. v. Hermann, supra, 772, see also Burns v. Bennett, 220 Conn. 162,167 n. 7, 595 A.2d 877 (1991), citing Jennings v. Parsons,71 Conn. 413, 42 A. 76 (1899). If a party "`has disclosed as required, and satisfied the court of his belief and good faith and intention to make the defense, then the truth or the legal sufficiency of it should be left to be tried and determined in the ordinary and regular way.'" Cardello v. Brennan,6 Conn. L. Rptr. 492 (May 29, 1992, Pickett, J.) quoting Jennings v. Parsons, supra, 417-18.

The plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' disclosure of defense is denied. CT Page 10096

/s/ Sylvester SYLVESTER, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagano-v-leclerc-no-116422-nov-22-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack