DocketNumber: No. CV 95 0550350
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5261-ZZZZ
Judges: HENNESSEY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/6/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The agent for service for Taubman is listed with the Connecticut Secretary of State as "CT Corporation System." On May 12, 1995, CT Corporation System refused to accept service of the writ of summons and complaint in this action. As a result of that refusal, it was discovered by Graham that Taubman had changed its name to "Taub-Co Management, Inc." (Taub-Co). The agent for service for Taub-Co is Corporation Service Company, located in Hartford, Connecticut. On May 16, 1995, a new writ of summons was prepared and attached to the original writ and complaint. The second writ and complaint named Taub-Co and Corporation Service Company. On May 16 and 17, 1995, the original writ of summons and complaint were served upon West Farms Associates and Taub-Co. The Sheriff appended to his return an affidavit certifying that the "original writ, summons and complaint" were placed in his hands on May 2, 1995. Both West Farms and Taub-Co filed answers on June 27, 1995. On November 13, 1995, Graham filed an amended complaint, naming Taub-Co as the defendant in the second count. On December 28, 1995, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint and alleged two special defenses. CT Page 5261-AAAAA
Count one of the amended complaint is directed at West Farms. Count two is directed at Taub-Co. Graham seeks damages for the negligence and carelessness of West Farms and Taub-Co.
On December 28, 1995, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was accompanied by a memorandum of law, a notice of filing request for admissions, and a copy of the Sheriff's affidavits. On February 29, 1996, Graham filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion. The memorandum was accompanied by the following documents: (1) a supplemental affidavit of Sheriff Joseph Musumeci, (2) the affidavit of attorney Michael J. Rose, (3) a display business summary of the Taubman Company, Inc., (4) a display name change of the Taub-Co Management, Inc., (5) a display business summary of Taub-Co, and (6) the affidavit of Sheriff Joseph Musumeci.
"Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Home Ins. Co. v. Aetna Life Casualty Co.,
West Farms moves for summary judgment on the ground that the action was not commenced within the two-year statutory period. It contends that the injury occurred on May 2, 1993 and that the action was not commenced until May 16 and 17, 1995, more than two years after the date of injury. CT Page 5261-BBBBB
In response, Graham argues that the action against both defendants was commenced within the statutory period by putting the writ of summons and complaint in the hands of the sheriff and effectuating service of the first writ and complaint by May 17, 1995. Graham maintains that General Statutes §
West Farms argues that Graham failed to satisfy the requirements of §
Graham contends that where service is defective with regard to one defendant and proper service is made on another defendant, the defect as to one defendant does not create a defect as to all defendants. Graham, therefore argues that the service made upon West Farms was proper, and so the motion for summary judgment should be denied as to West Farms.
Graham further maintains that misstating the name of a defendant on a writ is not grounds for rendering the process void where the person and the cause of action may be rightly understood by the court. Here, Graham contends that it was clear that the defendant being sued was the entity which "owned, operated, maintained, possessed and controlled . . ." the Westfarms Mall. (Complaint, dated May 2, 1995, Second Count, CT Page 5261-CCCCC para. 2). Taubman was an earlier name for Taub-Co. Graham maintains that she sued the correct party, but simply misstated the most current name of that party on the original writ. This defect, Graham argues, was cured in a timely fashion and should not be fatal.
COUNT ONE
The court will first address West Farms' claim that the defective service made on Taub-Co renders its own service defective. In Bridgeport v. Debek,
COUNT TWO
According to Practice Book § 49, process consists of the writ of summons, and it is accompanied by the complaint. Pursuant to Practice Book § 49, proper service of the writ of summons is a prerequisite to jurisdiction. In this case, the original writ was delivered to the sheriff on May 2, 1995. After discovering that the defendant had been incorrectly named, Graham attached a revised writ to the original writ and complaint and had these papers served on May 16 and 17, 1995. This second attempt at service, which included the correct writ, was successful.
General Statutes §
In the present case, the original writ and summons delivered to the sheriff listed the defendant as Taubman, not Taub-Co. The original complaint, moreover, was clearly directed at the party which "owned, operated, maintained, possessed and controlled . . ." the Westfarms Mall. (Complaint, dated May 2, 1995, Second Count, para. 2). Taub-Co admitted that it "operated, maintained, possessed and controlled" Westfarms Mall. (Answer and Special Defenses to the Amended Complaint Dated November 7, 1995). There can be no question about whom Graham intended to sue. Taub-Co certainly knew that it operated and managed Westfarms Mall, and so it could not have been misled by the use of the old corporate name, Taubman, on the original writ. The error of naming Taubman instead of Taub-Co was simply "a defect in the text of the writ falling squarely within the purview of [§]
The case cited by West Farms, Gallop v. Commercial Leasing,
Mary R. Hennessey, Judge