Date: 12-19-2002

Case Style: Michael D. Barile v. Lenscrafters, Inc., et al.

Case Number: AC 22475

Judge: Per Curiam

Court: Court of Appeals of Connecticut

Plaintiff's Attorney: Laura Lee A. Dorflinger filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).

Defendant's Attorney: Kenneth W. Gage and Mark J. Chumley filed a brief for the appellee (Lenscrafters, Inc.).

Otto P. Witt filed a brief for the appellee (Jennifer E. Saller).

Description: 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.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None