Hryniewicz v. Wilson, (AC 17262)
Citation | 722 A.2d 288,51 Conn. App. 440 |
Decision Date | 05 January 1999 |
Docket Number | (AC 17262) |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | PAUL HRYNIEWICZ ET AL. v. WILLIAM H. WILSON |
Schaller, Spear and Dupont, Js.
John M. Wyzik, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Bruce S. Beck, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiffs, Paul Hryniewicz and West Service Corporation (West Service), appeal from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
This case, a petition for new trial, arises out of the plaintiffs' prior appeal to this court in Wilson v. Hryniewicz, 38 Conn. App. 715, 663 A.2d 1073, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 918, 665 A.2d 610 (1995). The plaintiffs in the present case were defendants in Wilson and claimed on appeal in that case that the trial court improperly denied (1) their motion to strike and (2) their motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on count one of Wilson's complaint, which alleged that Hryniewicz and West Service had deprived Wilson of rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the present case, the plaintiffs allege that they were effectively denied the right of appeal because of mispleading not due to negligence or inattention and because the "color of law" issue in the defendant's § 1983 claim was decided without testimony from agents or representatives of the department of public utility control.
The relevant facts were set out in Wilson. "This action arises out of a dispute between [Wilson], a developer, and [West Service and Hryniewicz], a private utility in the town of Suffield and one of its employees. [Wilson], who was developing a subdivision in Suffield, had an agreement with [Hryniewicz and West Service] wherein West Service Corporation would supply the subdivision site with water. [Hryniewicz and West Service] delayed providing water to [Wilson's] subdivision for several years. An action was initiated to resolve the question of liability and the amount of damages allegedly resulting from the delay.
Wilson v. Hryniewicz, supra, 38 Conn. App. 716-17.
In Wilson, Hryniewicz and West Service appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of their motion to strike the first count of the original complaint. Id., 717-18. We declined to address that issue because the denial of a motion to strike the original complaint cannot be challenged on appeal after the filing of an amended complaint that the defendant answers without moving to strike. Id. The plaintiffs claimed in this case, by way of a petition for a new trial, that the verdict in Wilson was unfair and unjust, and that equity demands that a new trial be ordered. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed.
The plaintiffs first claim that the trial court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact to be decided in this case. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant submitted four unsworn exhibits with the motion for summary judgment and that these exhibits cannot be used to prove that no issues of material fact exist. We disagree.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) General Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Powers, Bolles, Houlihan & Hartline, Inc., 50 Conn. App. 701, 707-708, 719 A.2d 77 (1998), cert. granted on other grounds, 247 Conn. 954, 723 A.2d 810 (1999). "" Rosario v. Hasak, 50 Conn. App. 632, 636-37, 718 A.2d 505 (1998).
Inwood Condominium Assn. v. Winer, 49 Conn. App. 694, 697, 716 A.2d 139 (1998).
" Lowe v. Lowe, 47 Conn. App. 354, 360, 704 A.2d 236 (1997).
In the present case, the factual basis for the petition for a new trial was not in dispute and was the subject of the prior appeal. Although the plaintiffs object to the documents attached to the defendant's motion for summary judgment because they were unsworn, the documents were all contained in the original trial court file, and the defendant requested that the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cepeda
......98 n.21 ; State v. Thomas, supra, 50 Conn. App. 375; see also United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1121, 1124 (8th Cir. 1989) . At this point, we note that the defendant's brief states ......
-
Jacobs v. Fazzano
...State, [supra, 60]." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bleidner v. Searles, supra, 78-79; see Hryniewicz v. Wilson, 51 Conn. App. 440, 445, 722 A.2d 288 (1999). "Due diligence is a necessary condition to success in prosecuting a petition for a new trial." Crook v. Clark, 1......
-
Blake v. Wilton Motiva Associates, LLC
...fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hryniewicz v. Wilson, 51 Conn.App. 440 at 443-44, 722 A.2d 288 (1999). " To oppose a motion for summary judgment successfully, the nonmovant must recite specific facts in accordan......
-
Truglio v. Hayes Construction Co.
...1, 5, 357 A.2d 484 (1975).' Inwood Condominium Assn. v. Winer, 49 Conn. App. 694, 697, 716 A.2d 139 (1998)." Hryniewicz v. Wilson, 51 Conn. App. 440, 444, 722 A.2d 288 (1999). When viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the affidavits and other proof submitted by the parties ......