Tiber Holding Corp. v. Greenberg, 13021

• Decision Date: 31 January 1995
• Docket Number: No. 13021,13021
• Citation: 36 Conn.App. 670,652 A.2d 1063
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: TIBER HOLDING CORPORATION et al. v. Daniel S. GREENBERG.

Page 1063

652 A.2d 1063

36 Conn.App. 670

TIBER HOLDING CORPORATION et al. v. Daniel S. GREENBERG.

No. 13021.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 1, 1994.

Decided Jan. 31, 1995.

Kathryn L. Braun, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).

Lisa D. Galati, North Haven, for appellee (plaintiffs).

Before DUPONT, C.J., and FOTI and SCHALLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying the defendant's motion for reconsideration of the defendant's claim for expenses incurred in copying records requested by a subpoena duces tecum. The plaintiffs had brought a petition to compel the defendant to comply with a subpoena duces tecum that was served on the defendant in connection with an action pending in Pennsylvania, in which the defendant was not a party. The defendant sought monetary compensation for his efforts in complying with the subpoena. The trial court awarded him $206.85. This judgment was rendered and issued by mail on October 9, 1992.

On August 12, 1993, the defendant's counsel filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration and on October 22, 1993, the trial court issued notice of the denial of the motion. The defendant's appeal was filed on November 10, 1993. The defendant did not file an appeal within twenty days of the date of the original judgment of October 9, 1992, nor did he file a motion for reconsideration ¹ within twenty days of the original judgment. Practice Book § 4009.

On appeal from a denial of a motion to open a judgment or to reconsider or reargue, where there has been no appeal from the underlying judgment or motion to open within twenty days, the good cause required to open that judgment cannot involve the merits of the judgment. Altberg v. Paul Kovacs Tire Shop, Inc., 31 Conn.App. 634, 639, 626 A.2d 804 (1993). "When a motion to open is filed more than twenty days after the judgment, the appeal from the denial of that motion can test only whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to open the judgment and not the propriety of the merits of the underlying judgment." Id., at 640, 626 A.2d 804. This is so because otherwise the same issues that could have been resolved if timely raised would nevertheless be resolved, which would, in effect, extend the time to appeal.

The defendant's claims on appeal all relate to the merits of the underlying judgment, ² rather than to whether the trial court abused its discretion in not reconsidering the judgment. We may not review the claims raised.

The appeal is dismissed.

1 A motion to reargue or reconsider is proper even if no provision for reargument is provided in the rules of practice. Steele v. Stonington, 225 Conn. 217, 219 n. 4, 622 A.2d 551 (1993); see also 1 Connecticut Practice, W. Moller & W. Horton, Practice Book Annotated (Sup.1995) § 196, comment. In Steele, the Supreme Court noted that, "[n]otwithstanding the absence of a rule or statute, it is the inherent authority of every court, as long as it retains jurisdiction, to reconsider a prior ruling. As the United States Supreme Court has said: 'It is a power inherent in every court of justice so long as...