Katherine Stein et al. v. Samuel Gipstein (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [# 131]

On January 25, 2011, this court, Martin, J., denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Samuel Gipstein, as to the complaint brought by the plaintiffs, Katherine Stein, as administratrix of the estate of Wayne N. Lecardo, the plaintiffs' decedent, and Katherine Stein, individually [51 Conn. L. Rptr. 389].   The defendant filed a motion for reargument and/or reconsideration on March 16, 2011, which this court, Martin, J., denied on April 13, 2011.   On April 25, 2011, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's decision to deny the defendant's motion for reargument and/or reconsideration.

“[T]he purpose of a reargument is ․ to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts ․ It also may be used to address ․ claims of law that the [movant] claimed were not addressed by the court ․ [A] motion to reargue [however] is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Marquand v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 124 Conn.App. 75, 80, 3 A.3d 172 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 923, 15 A.3d 630 (2011).  “The granting of a motion for reconsideration ․ is within the sound discretion of the court.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Swanson v. Groton, 116 Conn.App. 849, 866, 977 A.2d 738 (2009).

Upon review, the court finds that the defendant's arguments in favor of granting the motion for reconsideration fail to demonstrate that the court overlooked a controlling decision or principle of law, misapprehended the facts, or failed to address a relevant claim of law.  Marquand v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, supra, 124 Conn.App. 80.   As a result, the defendant's motion for reconsideration must be denied.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the defendant's motion for reconsideration of the court's decision to deny the defendant's motion for reargument and/or reconsideration is hereby denied.

Martin, J.

Martin, Robert A., J.