Solomon v. Cimino, No. Cv 00-0441095s (Dec. 18, 2000)

Connecticut Superior Court

Solomon v. Cimino, No. Cv 00-0441095s (Dec. 18, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 16089

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 18, 2000

DocketNo. CV 00-0441095S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 16089 (Solomon v. Cimino, No. Cv 00-0441095s (Dec. 18, 2000)) 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

Solomon v. Cimino, No. Cv 00-0441095s (Dec. 18, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 16089 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO DISMISS This is an action seeking payment on a promissory note which was allegedly executed by the defendant. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that this action was not brought within the statute CT Page 16090 of limitations set forth in Connecticut General Statutes § 52-576 and therefore, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction.

However, it is only when a statute gives a right of action which did not exist at common law, and fixes the time within which the right must be enforced is such time limitation a limitation on the right itself as created rather than the remedy alone. Diamond National Corporation v.Dwelle, 164 Conn. 540 (1973); L.G. DeFelice Son, Inc. v. Wethersfield,167 Conn. 509, 512 (1975); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 106 (1974).

This case and the limitation of action set forth in § 52-576 does not fall into the above category. Section 52-576 serves to bar the remedy only and thus is procedural and does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

Bruce W. Thompson, Judge

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