Sheikh v. Alldridge, No. Spnh 9802-53726 (Mar. 2, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Sheikh v. Alldridge, No. Spnh 9802-53726 (Mar. 2, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2807, 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 97

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

DocketNo. SPNH 9802-53726

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2807 (Sheikh v. Alldridge, No. Spnh 9802-53726 (Mar. 2, 1998)) 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

Sheikh v. Alldridge, No. Spnh 9802-53726 (Mar. 2, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2807, 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 97 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendants move to dismiss this summary process action on the basis that insufficient time elapsed between service of the complaint and the return date. The defendants were served on February 5, 1998; the return day is February 11, 1998. General CT Page 2808 Statutes § 47a-23a provides in pertinent part: "Such complaint may be made returnable six days, inclusive, after service upon the defendant . . ."

Although there are no appellate cases construing this provision, the language parallels that of General Statutes § 52-46 which provides: "Civil process, if returnable to the Supreme Court, shall be served at least thirty days, inclusive, before the day of the sitting of the court, and, if returnable to the Superior Court, at least twelve days, inclusive, before such day." With respect to that statute, the law is that "[i]n computing the days prior to the return day in order to determine the last possible day of service, the day of service is to be included and the return day is excluded." Edward Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure (2nd Ed. 1970), § 21, p. 69; see Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Town of Hebron,51 Conn. 22, 27 (1883); see Diversified Financial Systems v. Nash, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at Meriden, No. CV93-0242923 (9 CONN. L. RPTR. 54, 8 CSCR 582) (April 29, 1993);Compo Brothers, Inc. v. City of Stamford, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, No. CV 94 0139598 (12 CONN. L. RPTR. 679), November 8, 1994).

"In construing a statute, other statutes relating to the same subject matter may be looked to for guidance because the legislature is presumed to have created a consistent body of law.Heffernan v. Slapin, 182 Conn. 40, 46, 438 A.2d 1 (1980); Doe v.Institute of Living, Inc., 175 Conn. 49, 58, 392 A.2d 491 (1978)."State v. Giorgio, 2 Conn. App. 204, 209, 477 A.2d 134 (1984); seeDart Bogue Co. v. Slosberg, 202 Conn. 566, 575, 522 A.2d 763 (1987). Employing the method of calculation used in connection with § 52-46, which contains essentially the same verbiage as General Statutes § 47a-23a, the plaintiffs made their complaint returnable six days, inclusive, after service on the defendants. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

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 defendants move to dismiss this summary process action on the basis that insufficient time elapsed between service of the complaint and the return date. The defendants were served on February 5, 1998; the return day is February 11, 1998. General CT Page 2808 Statutes § 47a-23a provides in pertinent part: "Such complaint may be made returnable six days, inclusive, after service upon the defendant . . ."

Although there are no appellate cases construing this provision, the language parallels that of General Statutes § 52-46 which provides: "Civil process, if returnable to the Supreme Court, shall be served at least thirty days, inclusive, before the day of the sitting of the court, and, if returnable to the Superior Court, at least twelve days, inclusive, before such day." With respect to that statute, the law is that "[i]n computing the days prior to the return day in order to determine the last possible day of service, the day of service is to be included and the return day is excluded." Edward Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure (2nd Ed. 1970), § 21, p. 69; see Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Town of Hebron,51 Conn. 22, 27 (1883); see Diversified Financial Systems v. Nash, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at Meriden, No. CV93-0242923 (9 CONN. L. RPTR. 54, 8 CSCR 582) (April 29, 1993);Compo Brothers, Inc. v. City of Stamford, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, No. CV 94 0139598 (12 CONN. L. RPTR. 679), November 8, 1994).

"In construing a statute, other statutes relating to the same subject matter may be looked to for guidance because the legislature is presumed to have created a consistent body of law.Heffernan v. Slapin, 182 Conn. 40, 46, 438 A.2d 1 (1980); Doe v.Institute of Living, Inc., 175 Conn. 49, 58, 392 A.2d 491 (1978)."State v. Giorgio, 2 Conn. App. 204, 209, 477 A.2d 134 (1984); seeDart Bogue Co. v. Slosberg, 202 Conn. 566, 575, 522 A.2d 763 (1987). Employing the method of calculation used in connection with § 52-46, which contains essentially the same verbiage as General Statutes § 47a-23a, the plaintiffs made their complaint returnable six days, inclusive, after service on the defendants. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2807, 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheikh-v-alldridge-no-spnh-9802-53726-mar-2-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack