DocketNumber: Nos. CV 95-0381357-S, CV 96-0382512-S
Citation Numbers: 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 8864
Judges: SILBERT, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/24/1997
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In opposition, the plaintiff Dedona offers only her own affidavit in which she states that she was seated in the back seat of the Giannotta vehicle, directly behind him, and "was unable to observe who was at fault for the collision between the two vehicles." Her statement that she does not know who was at fault does not place in dispute any of the statements contained in the affidavits in support of summary judgment and she has offered no other evidence. At argument, she claimed that there were other witnesses to the accident who might have contradicted the version contained in the defendant's affidavit, but she has made no effort to provide any of their affidavits. This court specifically inquired whether she would like a continuance to permit her to obtain such affidavits, and he declined.
The plaintiff Jeneen Ferraro has offered two pages of her own deposition testimony in an effort to contradict the affidavits presented in support of summary judgment. In that fragment of CT Page 8866 deposition testimony, however, she states only that she did not see the impact but that she believes that the impact occurred in Giannotta's travel lane. None of this contradicts the defendant's assertions, leaving the fact that he did nothing to cause this accident undisputed. As with Dedona, this court specifically inquired whether Ferraro wished to rely upon the materials presently before the court or whether she would like a continuance for the purpose of obtaining additional documentation. She too declined the court's offer of a continuance and elected to rely on the materials currently in the file.
Summary judgment must be granted if the pleadings, affidavits, and other documentary proof show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Conn. Practice Book § 384; Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.,
The purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate the delay and expense accompanying a trial where there is no real issue to be tried. Dowling v. Kielak,
Once the moving party has submitted evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue. Bartha v. Waterbury House Wrecking Co.,
The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegation or denial but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
It is true that summary judgment should be granted sparingly in cases where the allegations are of negligence, Fogarty v.Rashaw,
The motions for summary judgment are therefore granted.
Jonathan E. Silbert, Judge
Telesco v. Telesco , 187 Conn. 715 ( 1982 )
Dowling v. Kielak , 160 Conn. 14 ( 1970 )
Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc. , 178 Conn. 262 ( 1979 )
Farrell v. Farrell , 182 Conn. 34 ( 1980 )
Kasowitz v. Mutual Construction Co. , 154 Conn. 607 ( 1967 )
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 106 S. Ct. 2505 ( 1986 )
Michaud v. Gurney , 168 Conn. 431 ( 1975 )
Rusco Industries, Inc. v. Hartford Housing Authority , 168 Conn. 1 ( 1975 )
Dorazio v. M. B. Foster Electric Co. , 157 Conn. 226 ( 1968 )