DocketNumber: No. 324316
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 4171
Judges: HODGSON, J.
Filed Date: 5/4/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
In its intervening complaint, Preston alleges that it provided and will provide the plaintiff, Gary Birdsall, with worker's compensation benefits and that it seeks to recover its payments from the defendant pursuant to
Preston argues that when Judge Reilly granted its motion to intervene as a plaintiff he implicitly found that the intervention was timely. Preston therefore maintains that the defendant's special defense ignores the law of the case.
Judge Reilly granted Preston's motion to intervene without a written decision, and there is no indication that he adjudicated the issue of the timeliness of the intervention. While the court may deny motions to intervene for noncompliance with
Intervening complaints filed pursuant to
The defendant clearly has standing to raise the abatement of the intervening plaintiff's claim. That claim is, pursuant to
Standing concerns the right of a party to "set the machinery of the courts in operation." Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co.,
While the defendant's challenge to the intervening complaint could well have been raised by a motion to dismiss, see, e.g. Johndrow, supra, the intervening plaintiff has failed to provide any convincing reason why the issue of the abatement of its claim cannot be raised by a special defense.
The motion to strike the defendant's special defense if denied.
BEVERLY J. HODGSON, JUDGE