169 NOROTON AVE. v. SAVERINE, No. CV 03 0195872 (Mar. 23, 2004)


2004 Ct. Sup. 4209
No. CV 03 0195872Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
March 23, 2004

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]


The defendant, Samuel Saverine, filed a motion to strike the plaintiff’s entire complaint on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to join two necessary parties, Benny’s Inc., and Darien Plate Glass, tenants in part possession of the premises in dispute. The alleged interest of the tenants does not rise to the level where they would be considered Indispensable parties. Se Napoletano v. Cigna Healthcare of Connecticut, Inc., 238 Conn. 216, 680 A.2d 127, cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1103, L.Ed.2d 127 (1996). Furthermore, after reviewing the pleadings, memoranda of law by both parties, and the supporting evidence, this court finds that the defendant has not established, that the interest of the tenants would be directly, adversely effected by plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, said interest does not rise to the level which makes them “necessary” parties under the Practice Book § 10-39(b).[1] If justice and judicial economy would be served and a proper showing made, the tenants may file appropriate motions to be made parties. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to strike is denied.

Comerford, J.

[1] Practice Book § 10-39(b) provides: “A motion to strike on the ground of the non-joinder of a necessary party or noncompliance with Section 17-56(b) must give the name and residence of the missing party or interested person or such information as the moving party has as to the identity and residence of the missing party or interest person and must state the missing party’s or interest person’s interest in the cause of action.”

CT Page 4210