DocketNumber: No. CV 01-0084133
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 12033
Judges: CREMINS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/31/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The plaintiff, John H. Anderson, was arrested on October 25, 1997. The charge was dismissed by the court on August 19, 1998. The the present action was commenced by service of process upon the defendant, Stephen Kubish, on December 28, 2000. The plaintiff alleges that the accusations against him and his arrest and prosecution resulted in a malicious prosecution. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
The defendant filed an answer and three special defenses to this action on March 15, 2001. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike the first special defense, which alleges that the action is barred by the provisions of General Statutes §
DISCUSSION
The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest "the legal sufficiency of any answer to any complaint . . . including any special defense contained therein. . . ." Practice Book §
Connecticut recognizes a cause of action for malicious prosecution. SeeMcHale v. W.B.S. Corporation,
The parties have not cited, nor has the court found, any case law in Connecticut regarding the statute of limitations in the context of a malicious prosecution action. Because, however, vexatious litigation claims are regarded as a "type of malicious prosecution action;"Vandersluis v. Weil,
A cause of action for malicious prosecution does not accrue until the underlying action is terminated in the plaintiff's favor. Gionet v. CraftMagic, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Norwich, Docket No. 115480 (June 14, 1999, Hurley, J.T.R.); Balletti v. Alter, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. 541996 (Sept. 25, 1998, Peck, J.). The applicable statute of limitations, General Statutes §
There is one Superior Court decision holding that there was a question of fact as to whether statute of limitations was tolled under the continuing course of conduct doctrine; see Heid v. Lyons, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 338856 (Nov. 16, 2000, Melville, J.) ("the defendant `prosecuted' or `maintained' the prior action until . . . the court rendered judgment . . ."); and another wherein it was reasoned that the maintenance of such a suit could itself be the act or omission complained of. See Shea v.Chase Manhattan Bank, supra,
Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to strike the first special defense is denied.
Cremins, J. CT Page 12036