Newtown v. Ostrosky


*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** APPENDIX TOWN OF NEWTOWN v. SCOTT E. OSTROSKY ET AL.* Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield File No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S Memorandum filed September 13, 2018 Proceedings Memorandum of decision on named defendant’s motion to reargue and for reconsideration. Motion denied. Joshua Pedreira, for the plaintiff. Robert M. Fleischer, for the named defendant. Opinion HON. ALFRED J. JENNINGS, JR., JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE. The defendant Scott E. Ostrosky moves to reargue and for reconsideration of the ruling by the court on June 18, 2018, granting the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment of foreclosure and entering judgment of foreclosure by sale on June 18, with a sale date of December 8, 2018. Since both parties have briefed the issue thoroughly, the court will decide this motion as a motion for reconsideration. The defendant argues, first, that the default for failure to plead entered against him by the clerk on June 7, 2018, in response to the plaintiff’s motion for default for failure to plead, dated May 23, 2018 (No. 114), was invalid and cannot serve as the basis for judgment. The defendant’s reasoning is that the motion for default for failure to plead was filed ‘‘pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 10-18,’’ which provides: ‘‘Parties failing to plead according to the rules and orders of the judicial authority may be nonsuited or defaulted, as the case may be. (See General Statutes § 52-119 and annota- tions.)’’ The referenced statute, § 52-119, provides: ‘‘Par- ties failing to plead according to the rules and orders of the court may be nonsuited or defaulted, as the case may be.’’ The May 23, 2018 motion for default alleges that ‘‘the return date was November 8, 2016, and, to date, no responsive pleading has been filed by the defendant Scott Ostrosky, although the time limit for such has passed.’’ The time limit at issue, as stated in Practice Book § 10-8, for …

Original document

This review has been syndicated from NO SCAM

To read the full review, go to –

Add comment