Connecticut Superior Court, 1967

Connecticut Television, Inc. v. Laughing

Connecticut Superior Court · Decided July 5, 1967 · Parskey

232 A.2d 117; 27 Conn. Super. Ct. 133; 27 Conn. Supp. 133; 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 210 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Day, Berry Howard, of Hartford, for the plaintiff. Ribicoff Kotkin, of Hartford, for the defendant N.E. Industry, Inc. Bascom O'Brien, of New London, for the defendant Bridgeport Community Antenna T.V.A.T. Daddario, Slitt, Jacobs Sullivan, of Hartford, for the defendant Cable Video, Inc. Max M. Savitt, of Hartford, for the defendant Greater Hartford Broadcasting. Smith, Smith Mettling, of Torrington, for the defendant Ducci Electric Company. Harold M. Mulvey, attorney general, and John K. Jepson, assistant attorney general, for the defendant Public Utilities Commission. Frank R. Odlum, of Hartford, for the defendant Public Utilities Commission. Sachs, Sachs, Giaimo Sachs, of New Haven, for the defendant M. Jenetopoulos Systems. John L. Collins, of Hartford, for the defendants G. Ogle and P. Hancock. Thomas J. O'Sullivan, of Orange, for the defendant Teletron, Inc. Joseloff, Murrett Knierim, of Hartford, for the defendant Grossco C.A.T.V., Inc. Ells, Quinlan Eddy, of Winsted, for the defendant Eastern Cablevision Company. Bailey Wechsler, of Hartford, for the defendant Lavitt Cablevision. Cooney Scully, of Hartford, for the defendant Teleprompter Corporation. Gould, Killian Krechevsky, of Hartford, for the defendant Outlet Company. Sturges Mathes, of Woodbury, for the defendant Waterbury Community Antenna, Inc.

Opinion of the Court

Parskey, J.

The motion to dismiss is an anomaly in our trial practice. Although in the past this motion has been treated as a motion to erase; Ragali v. Holmes, 111 Conn. 663, 664 (1930); whose office was not to allege new matter but to take advantage of objections already apparent on the face of the record; Bethel & Redding Lime Co. v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 82 Conn. 135, 142 (1909); since the adoption of the 1963 Practice Book there is no justification for its continued use. The Practice Book recognizes only two methods of making a plea to the jurisdiction, namely, a plea in abatement; Practice Book §93; and a motion to erase. Practice Book § 94. Despite the fact that the motion to dismiss at the trial level is possessed of neither statutory nor case law authority; Stephenson, Conn. Civ. Proc. §77c; and that our Supreme Court has admonished that innovations should not be put into practice ex parte by counsel; Vigue v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 147 Conn. 305, 306 (1960); this motion, usually embroi *135 dered with its federal practice piping, continues to press for recognition in our courtrooms. Until such time as the rules are changed so as to permit its use, the court would be foolhardy to give it even color-able recognition.

Accordingly, the motions of Teleprompter Corporation of New York and Greater Hartford CATV, Inc., to dismiss are expunged as improperly filed. Snelling v. Merritt, 85 Conn. 83, 92 (1911).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.