Connecticut Superior Court, 2002

Bollo v. Beckerman, No. Cv00-033 95 26 S (Mar. 19, 2002)

Bollo v. Beckerman, No. Cv00-033 95 26 S (Mar. 19, 2002)
Connecticut Superior Court · Decided March 19, 2002 · MORAGHAN, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3649
Bollo v. Beckerman, No. Cv00-033 95 26 S (Mar. 19, 2002)

Opinion of the Court

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff has moved this court for judgment dismissing the defendant's counterclaim for failure to fully comply with the plaintiff's discovery requests before "December 24, 2001 or dismissal of counterclaim shall enter." The date thereof was November 20, 2001 (Doherty, J.).

A hearing on the plaintiff's motion for judgment for failure to "fully comply" was assigned for February 11, 2002 (Carroll, J.). On that date, the plaintiff appeared, represented that defense counsel was not coming, as he asserted was his (defense counsel's) usual course of conduct, and was fully heard.

The court finds that the defendant indeed has not fully complied with the plaintiff's discovery requests and, in accordance with the court's order of November 20, 2001, judgment may enter dismissing the defendant's counterclaim. See Pearl-Main Investment Co. v. Homecrest Builders,34 Conn. App. 929; Town of Thomaston v. Gebelein, 38 Conn. App. 903;Modzelewski v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 65 Conn. App. 708 (motions to dismiss counterclaims appropriate vehicles to utilize under these circumstances).

____________________ Moraghan, J.T.R.

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