In this action for strict foreclosure, the named defendant has appealed from the trial court’s denial of his second “motion to reopen judg *334 ment and extend law day.” 1 By way of this motion, the named defendant sought to obtain a six month extension in the law day set for March 1, 1980. A motion to open a judgment of strict foreclosure is addressed to the discretion of the trial court; see General Statutes § 49-15; and “ ‘unless that discretion was abused or was based upon some error in law, the denial of the motion must stand.’ Carrington v. Muhlfeld, 122 Conn. 334, 337, 189 A.2d 184 [1937].” Sebastiano v. Corde, 171 Conn. 324, 325-26, 370 A.2d 946 (1976). The named defendant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion. 2

There is no error; the case, however, is remanded with direction to render judgment as on file except for such modification as is made necessary by the lapse of time since the original judgment.