DocketNumber: No. CV-96-0564554-S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 7141
Judges: MULCAHY, J.
Filed Date: 6/12/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
A motion for reconsideration equates to a motion for reargument. Peterson v. Petersen, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain (9/19/97). A reargument serves the purpose of demonstrating to the court "`that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts.'" Jaser v. Jaser,
The court has reviewed its memorandum of decision dated (and filed) March 10, 1998; it is concluded that the grounds set forth therein for the dismissal of this action, arrived at after the conducting of an evidentiary hearing, have continued application. Plaintiff now attempts to cure the defect, after the action has been dismissed, by noticing the insurance commissioner. She fails to provide new evidence that, prior to the dismissal, she had complied with the statutory requirement for service and court orders. The action has been dismissed, and plaintiff's present remedies are refiling (new action) or appealing the legal basis for the 3/10/98 dismissal.2
The motion for reconsideration (#122) is hereby denied, and defendant's objection (#123) is, for the reasons stated,sustained.3
Mulcahy, J.