Roger Brown v. State of Connecticut (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On January 14, 2014, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.   The court's reasoning is set out in a 6–page written memorandum of decision.   On January 28, 2014, the defendant moved for reargument.

Practice Book Section 11–11 governs motions to reargue decisions that are final judgments for purposes of appeal;  the filing of a motion under § 11–11 tolls the appeal period.  “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 may also 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;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692 (2001).

It 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.”  Id., 693.   See also Durkin Village Plainville v. Cunningham, 97 Conn.App. 640, 656 (2006) (defendants attempted to submit additional evidence that was not before the court when it decided the motions for summary judgment).   The granting of the motion is within the discretion of the trial court.  Gibbs v. Spinner, 103 Conn.App. 502, 507 (2007).

The court has carefully reviewed the plaintiff's arguments and finds that there is nothing that was not considered by the court in making the decision to grant the motion for summary judgment.   The motion to reargue is being used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple.   For this reason, the motion to reargue is denied.

BY THE COURT,

John W. Pickard, J.

Pickard, John W., J.