Cynthia E. Nuzzi v. Carmine Nuzzi (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On December 6, 2013, the defendant ex-husband filed an amended motion to reargue the court's October 1, 2013 memorandum of decision in relation to a postjudgment motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff ex-wife and a postjudgment motion for modification filed by the defendant.

Practice Book § 11–12(c) provides:  “The motion to reargue shall be considered by the judge who rendered the decision or order.   Such judge shall decide, without a hearing, whether the motion to reargue should be granted.   If the judge grants the motion, the judge shall schedule the matter for hearing on the relief requested.   The grant or denial of a motion to reargue is a matter within the sound discretion of the court.”  Gibbs v. Spinner, 103 Conn.App. 502, 508, 930 A.2d 53 (2007).

“The 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 alleged inconsistencies in the trial court's memorandum of decision as well as claims of law that the [movant] claimed were not addressed by the court.”  (Citations omitted.)   Opuku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692, 778 A.2d 981 (2001).

The court granted the defendant's amended motion and scheduled a hearing for December 16, 2013.   Prior to the hearing, the court reviewed its written decision, both the amended motion and the motion in opposition thereto and the parties' briefs.   At the hearing, the court heard oral argument from the parties concerning the defendant's amended motion to reargue and the plaintiff's objection thereto.   After the hearing concluded, the court reviewed its October 1, 2013 memorandum of decision again, its notes from the December 16, 2013 hearing and reread the parties' motions and briefs related thereto.   In doing this, the court was mindful of the further principle of law that applies to a motion to reargue.

“[A] motion to reargue [however] is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple or to present additional cases or briefs which could have been presented at the time of the original argument.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692–93, 778 A.2d 981 (2001).

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the issues of facts and claims of law raised by the defendant in his amended motion and during the hearing on the amended motion to reargue were neither overlooked nor misapprehended by the court.   Consequently, although the court granted said motion, the relief requested in the defendant's amended motion to reargue is hereby denied.

BY THE COURT,

SYBIL V. RICHARDS, JUDGE

Richards, Sybil V., J.