DocketNumber: No. 124556
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 3619
Judges: FLYNN, J. CT Page 3620
Filed Date: 4/7/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The word "within" is of controlling importance. It means "not longer in time than"; Webster's New International Dictionary, (2d Ed.); "not later than." 69 C.J. 1315; 45 words Phrases (Perm. Ed.); p. 378. The word "within" is almost universally used as a word of limitation, unless there are other controlling words in the context showing that a different meaning was intended. Whitford v. Lee,
97 Conn. 554 ,561 ,117 A. 554 . In O'Neil v. Boston,257 Mass. 414 ,415 ,153 N.E. 884 .Maria Lamberti v. City of Stamford,
131 Conn. 396 ,398 (1994).
In computing the time period the day of the act from which a future time is to be ascertained is to be excluded from the computation. Austin, Nichols Co., v. Gilman,
The appearance was filed on February 14, 1995, at 9:08 a.m. That day, as the day of the act from which a future time is to be ascertained, is excluded. Lamberti, supra. Excluding February 14, 1995, fourteen days elapsed in February and the motion was stamped in at 8:55 on the 16th of March, within thirty days of the appearance filing permitted by P.B. § 142.
Since the motion to dismiss was filed within the thirty days, the law allows, the motion for default is denied, and the plaintiff will have to respond to the defendant's jurisdictional challenge.
CT Page 3621 /s/ Flynn, J. FLYNN