Sullivan v. Town of Monroe, No. Cv00 037 0545 (Jan. 29, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1643
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedJanuary 29, 2001
DocketNo. CV00 037 0545
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1643 (Sullivan v. Town of Monroe, No. Cv00 037 0545 (Jan. 29, 2001)) 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
Sullivan v. Town of Monroe, No. Cv00 037 0545 (Jan. 29, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1643 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT (#134)
The Motion for Summary Judgement (#134) is granted.

First,

"Once the moving party has presented evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue . . . . It is not enough, however, for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue. `Mere assertions of fact . . . are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court under Practice Book 380.' Bartha v. Waterbury House Wrecking Co., [190 Conn. 8, 12, 459 A.2d 115 (1983)]. "The movant has the burden of showing the nonexistence of such issues but the evidence thus presented, if otherwise sufficient, is not rebutted by the bald statement that an issue. of fact does exist.' Kasowitz v. Mutual Construction Co., 154 Conn. 607, 613, 228 A.2d 149 (1967), quoting Boyce v. Merchants Fire Ins. Co., 204 F. Sup. 311, 314 (D.Conn. 1962) . . . ." Burns v. Hartford Hospital, 192 Conn. 451, 455, 472 A.2d 1257 (1984); Daily v. New Britain Machine Co., supra, 568-569. "To oppose a motion for summary judgment successfully, the nonmovant must CT Page 1644 recite specific facts which contradict those stated in the movant's affidavits and documents." State v. Goggin, supra, 616-17. Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 214 Conn. 573, 578 (1990).

Secondly, the Honorable William Mottolese, Judge, established the law of this case in his decision (June 30, 2000). A result of his decision was that the approvals were proper. There is no legal requirement that a separate excavation permit be obtained.

THE COURT,

DANIEL E. BRENNAN, JR., J.

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

Related

Bartha v. Waterbury House Wrecking Co.
459 A.2d 115 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1983)
Kasowitz v. Mutual Construction Co.
228 A.2d 149 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1967)
Burns v. Hartford Hospital
472 A.2d 1257 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1984)
Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.
573 A.2d 699 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-town-of-monroe-no-cv00-037-0545-jan-29-2001-connsuperct-2001.