Robert Pritsker et al. v. Stately Stairs Co., Inc. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiffs have petitioned for a new trial as provided by § 52–270 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

The plaintiffs, as petitioner, have the burden of proving that their petition meets the provisions of § 52–270.

The relevant portion of § 52–270 that is in issue in this case is that portion of the statute that provides “The Superior Court may grant a new trial of any action that may come before it for reasonable cause,” the other alternative reasons provided in the statute are not relevant to the plaintiffs' petition.

The matter for which a new trial is sought is a small claims matter that went to judgment on September 15, 2008.

The plaintiffs by their own allegations allege “Plaintiffs did not make a certain-to-be-futile motion to open the judgment in view of the magistrate's disinterest in plaintiffs' (here) legal argument ․”

The appeal process in a small claims matter is limited to a motion to open judgment for any cause that the judicial authority may deem sufficient.   Practice Book § 24–31.   The plaintiffs admittedly choose not to pursue their appeal procedure provided by P.B. § 24–31.

“Although General Statutes § 52–270 permits the court to grant a new trial upon proof of ‘reasonable cause,’ the circumstances in which reasonable cause may be found are limited ․ The basic test of ‘reasonable cause’ is whether a litigant, despite the exercise of due diligence, has been deprived of a fair opportunity to have a case heard on appeal ․ A new trial may be granted to prevent injustice in cases where the usual remedy by appeal does not lie or where, if there is adequate remedy by appeal, the party has been prevented from pursuing it by fraud, mistake or accident ․ Absent such special circumstances, [a] petition for a new trial does not furnish a substitute for, or an alternative to, an ordinary appeal.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Bleidner v. Searles, 19 Conn.App. 76, 78–79, 561 A.2d 954 (1989).  “Due diligence is a necessary condition to success in prosecuting a petition for a new trial ․ Under § 52–270 the exercise of due diligence is a condition precedent to a finding of reasonable cause.”   (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Jacobs v. Fazzano, 59 Conn.App. 716, 724, 757 A.2d 1215 (2000).

The deliberate choice of assuming that the judicial authority will rule unfavorably is not an exercise of due diligence.   The practice book provision for a motion to open judgment, the only appeal in a small claims matter, must be complied with to demonstrate due diligence, especially when the petitioners have demonstrated that they were clearly aware of the procedure called for and chose to ignore it.

Judgment may enter in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs having failed to prove “reasonable cause” as provided by § 52–270 to entitle them to a new trial.

The small claims judgment being valid, the plaintiffs' petition for an injunction is denied.

STODOLINK, J.T.R.

Stodolink, Edward F., J.T.R.