DocketNumber: No. 0058029
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 786
Judges: PICKETT, J.
Filed Date: 1/13/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On November 26, 1991, the defendant filed a motion to strike the CT Page 787 petition for a new trial. In its supporting memorandum the defendant claims that the petition should be stricken because the plaintiff's attached list of exhibits is insufficient, as said list does not contain all evidence produced at the trial relevant to the issue for which the plaintiff now claims newly discovered evidence. The defendant also claims that the petition should be stricken because the plaintiff has failed to allege that this newly discovered evidence is likely to produce a different result than that reached at the trial.
On December 10, 1991, the plaintiff filed a motion in opposition to the motion to strike, attaching thereto a supporting memorandum. The plaintiff contends that he has complied with all of the requirements of petitioning for a new trial as specified in Form 604.14 of the Practice Book (Forms), and that the motion to strike should be denied.
A motion to strike tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading and "admits all facts well pleaded," Ferryman v. Groton,
"An essential allegation of [a petition for a new trial] is that the evidence claimed to have been discovered will, if offered, probably produce a different result." Miner v. Miner,
PICKETT, J.