Nancy Brady–Kinsella v. Stephen Kinsella N/K/A Kayleigh Kinsella (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE P.B. § 64–1

The court filed a Memorandum of Decision dated January 11, 2012 after a three-day trial in this matter.   On January 27, 2012, defendant filed a Motion to Reargue and Reconsider, which the court denied without argument pursuant to § 11–12(c) of the Practice Book. On March 10, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Notice of No Decision” pursuant to the court's denial of its Motion to Reargue and Reconsider.

“[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 ․” Liberti v. Liberti, 132 Conn.App. 869, 874 (2012), citing Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692–93 (2001).   The court's denial of defendant's Motion to Reargue or Reconsider was based on its opinion that it raised neither a controlling decision or principle of law nor a misapprehension of fact, but was, rather, “an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple.”  Id.

James W. Abrams, Judge

Abrams, James W., J.