Perrelli v. Witkin

Connecticut Appellate Court

Perrelli v. Witkin

769 A.2d 65, 61 Conn. App. 761, 2001 Conn. App. LEXIS 68

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

DocketAC 20971

StatusPublished

This text of 769 A.2d 65 (Perrelli v. Witkin) 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

Perrelli v. Witkin, 769 A.2d 65, 61 Conn. App. 761, 2001 Conn. App. LEXIS 68 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Frank A. Perrelli, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action for damages for his failure to post a bond in recognizance in the amount of $250 within thirty days of the order of the court.

The order to post the bond was entered on August 10, 1999. The plaintiff posted the required bond on August 18, 1999, within the thirty day period allowed by the court. Thereafter, the defendant moved to dismiss the action, claiming that the bond had not been posted. The court granted the defendant’s motion on October 18,1999.¹ The record discloses that the plaintiff complied with the court’s order and that an inadvertent ministerial error led to the dismissal of the action. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court dismissing the action and order that the matter be restored to the docket.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to restore the case to the docket.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Frank A. Perrelli, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action for damages for his failure to post a bond in recognizance in the amount of $250 within thirty days of the order of the court.

The order to post the bond was entered on August 10, 1999. The plaintiff posted the required bond on August 18, 1999, within the thirty day period allowed by the court. Thereafter, the defendant moved to dismiss the action, claiming that the bond had not been posted. The court granted the defendant’s motion on October 18,1999.¹ The record discloses that the plaintiff complied with the court’s order and that an inadvertent ministerial error led to the dismissal of the action. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court dismissing the action and order that the matter be restored to the docket.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to restore the case to the docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 A.2d 65, 61 Conn. App. 761, 2001 Conn. App. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrelli-v-witkin-connappct-2001.