Michael D. Barile v. Lenscrafters, Inc., et al.

The
plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants
alleging defamation, wrongful discharge and negligent
and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On
August 18, 2000, Saller filed a motion for summary judgment.
On December 27, 2000, LensCrafters, Inc., filed
a motion for summary judgment. The court scheduled
a hearing on both motions for August 13, 2001; however,
at the request of the plaintiff's counsel, the hearing was
continued to August 20, 2001. On August 17, 2001, three
days before the scheduled hearing, the plaintiff filed
his memorandum of law in opposition to the motion
filed by LensCrafters, Inc. He did not file opposition
papers regarding Saller's motion until the morning of
the hearing.

After the hearing, the court granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment on the ground that the
plaintiff had failed to comply with Practice Book § 17-
45.1 Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to reargue,
which the court denied. This appeal followed.

The plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion
by granting the defendants' motions for summary
judgment on procedural grounds rather than addressing
the merits of his claims. The court, citing Inwood Condominium
Assn. v. Winer, 49 Conn. App. 694, 697–98,
716 A.2d 139 (1998), granted the defendants' motions
on the ground that the ‘‘plaintiff failed to file [opposing]
affidavits [as] mandated by [Practice Book] § 17-45.''
Section 17-45 provides in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he
adverse party shall at least five days before the date
the motion is to be considered on the short calendar file
opposing affidavits and other available documentary
evidence. . . .'' (Emphasis added.) Moreover, in its
memorandum of decision on the plaintiff's motion to
reargue, the court stated that the ‘‘plaintiff failed to file
opposition papers in a timely manner.'' We agree with
the court. See Practice Book § 17-45; Inwood Condominium Assn. v. Winer, supra, 697–98.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Affirmed

Unknown

Unknown

None