Town of Newtown v. Ostrosky, 122220 CTCA, AC 42176

Docket Nº:AC 42176
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:TOWN OF NEWTOWN v. SCOTT E. OSTROSKY ET AL.
Attorney:Robert M. Fleischer, for the appellant (named defendant). Alexander Copp, with whom, on the brief, was Jason A. Buchsbaum, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Judge Panel:Alvord, Suarez and Pellegrino, Js. HON. ALFRED J. JENNINGS, JR., JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Case Date:December 22, 2020
Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut

TOWN OF NEWTOWN

v.

SCOTT E. OSTROSKY ET AL.

No. AC 42176

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

December 22, 2020

Argued November 18, 2020

Procedural History

Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain of the named defendant's real property, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury and transferred to the judicial district of Fairfield, where the named defendant was defaulted for failure to plead; thereafter, the court, Hon. Alfred J. Jennings, Jr., judge trial referee, granted the plaintiff's motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure and rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale; subsequently, the court denied the named defendant's motion to reargue and for reconsideration, and the named defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Robert M. Fleischer, for the appellant (named defendant).

Alexander Copp, with whom, on the brief, was Jason A. Buchsbaum, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Alvord, Suarez and Pellegrino, Js.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion to reargue and for reconsideration filed by the defendant Scott E. Ostrosky1 from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Newtown. On appeal, the defendant claims that the judgment should be opened and vacated because (1) the default that was entered by the court clerk was invalid and cannot serve as the basis for the foreclosure judgment and (2) the motion for a judgment of foreclosure was filed prematurely by the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff instituted foreclosure proceedings against the defendant on October 17, 2016. On May 23, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for default for failure to plead, pursuant to Practice Book § 10-18. On June 6, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure, pursuant to Practice Book § 17-25 et seq. On June 7, 2018, the court clerk granted the plaintiff's motion for default for failure to plead. On June 18, 2018, the court rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale against the defendant, setting a sale date of December 8, 2018. On July 3, 2018, the defendant filed a motion to reargue and for reconsideration, claiming that the default entered by the court clerk was invalid and could not serve as the basis for the foreclosure judgment, and that the plaintiff's motion for judgment was filed prematurely. On September 13, 2018, the court denied the defendant's motion to reargue and for reconsideration.

The defendant appealed to this court from the denial of his motion to reargue and for reconsideration and challenged the trial court's judgment of foreclosure by sale. On appeal, he essentially reiterates the same claim that he raised in the trial court in support of his motion to reargue and for reconsideration, namely, that the default entered by the court clerk was invalid and could not serve as the basis for the foreclosure judgment and that the plaintiff's motion for judgment of strict foreclosure was filed prematurely.

We carefully have examined the record of the proceedings before the trial court, in addition to the parties' appellate briefs and oral arguments, and we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the court, Hon. Alfred J. Jennings, Jr., judge trial referee, thoroughly addressed the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt its well reasoned decision denying the defendant's motion to reargue and for reconsideration as a statement of the facts and the applicable law with respect to the issues raised in this appeal. See Newtown v. Ostrosky, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-16-6060962-S (September 13, 2018) (reprinted at 201 Conn.App. ___, ___A.3d ___). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).

The judgment denying the motion to reargue and for reconsideration is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting a new sale date.

APPENDIX

TOWN OF NEWTOWN

v.

SCOTT E. OSTROSKY ET AL.[*]

Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield File No. CV-16-6060962-S

Argued November 18, 2020

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP