DocketNumber: No. CV 00-0435748748.
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5874
Judges: DEVLIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/4/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The defendant has moved for summary judgment asserting that the plaintiff's action is barred by the two year statute of limitations contained in General Statutes §
On December 22, 1999, plaintiff's counsel delivered a writ of summons and complaint to Deputy Sheriff Andrew Esposito in order to make proper service upon the defendant. The statute of limitations was due to expire on December 27, 1999. On January 12, 2000, plaintiff's counsel contacted Sheriff Esposito and learned that the sheriff had not served the original summons and complaint upon the defendant within the applicable limitations period or the additional fifteen day period allowed by General Statutes §
Upon learning that the sheriff had lost the original papers, plaintiff's counsel prepared a new complaint adding paragraph 11 that alleged that the action was brought pursuant to General Statutes §
If any action, commenced within the time limited by law, has failed one or more times to be tried on its merits because of insufficient service or return of the writ due to unavoidable accident or the default or neglect of the officer to whom it was committed, or because the action has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, or the action has been otherwise avoided or defeated by the death of a party or for any matter of. . . . . . the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action . . . within one year . . . of the original action. (Emphasis added).
The extension of time allowed by §
Under Connecticut law, an action is commenced once the writ, summons and complaint have been served upon the defendant. Rana v. Ritacco,
Applying the above authority to the present facts, the court cannot find that delivery of the writ, summons and complaint to Sheriff Esposito "commenced" the plaintiff's action. Accordingly, the court cannot find that the accidental failure of suit statute applies to extend the statute of limitations. This view in accord with the majority of Superior Court cases that have confronted efforts to apply §
Plaintiff correctly points out that a contrary result was reached inClarke v. Estate of Theresa Morton, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 459 (ID. Windham, February 23, 2000, Kocay, J.). In Clarke, the plaintiff delivered process to the sheriff who died before service was made. The plaintiff commenced a new action after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court ruled that application of the accidental failure of suit statute presented an issue of fact and denied the defense motion for summary judgment. The Clarke opinion does not discuss how the plaintiff "commenced" the original case. As discussed above, the prevailing view is that mere delivery of process to the sheriff is not sufficient to commence an action.
So Ordered at New Haven, Connecticut this 4th day of May, 2001.
Devlin, J.