DocketNumber: No. CV96 0389536S
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5044, 24 Conn. L. Rptr. 337
Judges: DEVLIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/6/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In the court's view, if the request for leave to amend the complaint is granted, the summary judgment claims of the Town are rendered moot.1 The Town objects to allowing the complaint to be amended and claims that it has the right to have its summary judgment motion decided based on the current version of the complaint. Indeed, in its reply to Knoob's objection to its summary judgment motion, the Town asserts:
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the prohibition of amendments to pleadings in the face of motions for summary judgment."
Reply Memorandum of Law To Plaintiff's Objection to Motion forSummary Judgment, p. 2.
In support of this statement, the Town cites, Conference CenterLtd. v. TRC,
"While a trial court may be well-advised to exercise leniency when amendments are proffered in response to a motion for summary judgment, rather than on the eve of trial, we have affirmed as discretionary the denial of permission to amend under such circumstances in Citizens National Bank v. Hubney,
182 Conn. 310 ,313 ,438 A.2d 430 (1980)."
The above language makes clear that rather than prohibiting amendments to pleadings in response to motions for summary judgment, the Supreme Court is encouraging just the opposite. Therefore, since this case is not on the trial list, the I plaintiffs request for leave to amend complaint should be CT Page 5046 permitted. Further as noted above, the allegations in the proposed amended complaint render the summary judgment claims moot.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's Request For Leave to Amend Complaint dated March 18, 1999 is granted and the Town's motion for summary judgment is denied.
So Ordered at New Haven, Connecticut this 5th of April, 1999.
Devlin, J.