96104 Apartments, LLC v. Alan M. Fischer.

2006 Ct. Sup. 23308
No. HHB CV06 4010079 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Britain at New Britain
November 28, 2006

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]


After an evidentiary hearing and after consideration of the parties’ post-hearing memoranda of law, the court issued its memorandum of decision, dated November 7, 2006 (#105), in which it granted 96104 Apartments, LLC’s application for discharge of broker’s lien. This matter is now before the court in connection with a motion to reargue, filed on November 16, 2006 by Alan M. Fischer, the respondent (motion).

In the motion, the respondent “requests permission of the court to present re-argument in the above matter concerning the law applicable to the issues before the court. The defendant submits that current case law prevents the plaintiff from seeking relief from the court in the instant action.” No case law or other authority is cited in the motion.

The court has considered the motion. In its previous memorandum of decision, the court discussed the applicable law and set forth its findings, which need not be repeated here. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motion.

“[T]he purpose of a reargument is . . . to demonstrate 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 . . . It also may be used to address alleged inconsistencies in the trial court’s memorandum of decision as well as claims of law that the [movant] claimed were not addressed by the . . . [A] motion to reargue [however] is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple or to present additional cases or briefs which could have been presented at the time of the original argument.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692-93, 778 A.2d 981 (2001). “A motion to reargue, like a motion to open a judgment, should not be readily granted nor without strong reasons, [but] ought to be [granted] when there appears cause for which the court acting reasonably would feel bound in duty so to do.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) CT Page 2330 Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Greathouse, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV98 0164835 (June 27, 2000, D’Andrea, J.), cited in Opoku v. Grant, supra, 63 Conn.App. 692, 693.

The unsupported statement in the motion that current case law prevents the applicant from seeking relief from the court is a “mere assertion.”State v. Davis, 90 Conn.App. 263, 270, 876 A.2d 1265, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 928, 883 A.2d 1247 (2005). “[I]t is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way . . . [A]nalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 90 Conn.App. 270.

“[A]s a general matter, in the absence of the discovery of some new facts or new legal authorities that could not have been presented earlier, the denial of a motion for reargument is not an abuse of the discretion of the trial court.” (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Weinstein v. Weinstein, 275 Conn. 671, 705, 882 A.2d 53

The respondent has presented no authority for his contention. The respondent has not cited any controlling decision or any claim of law which was allegedly overlooked by the court in its memorandum of decision. He does not contend that the court’s decision is inconsistent or that the court misapprehended the facts.

The respondent’s unsupported request for reargument is contrary to the applicable case law cited above. Rather, the motion seeks a “second bite of the apple.” Opoku v. Grant, supra, 63 Conn.App. 693.

The motion does not present any compelling reason for reargument or for changing the court’s decision. Accordingly, the motion is not well-founded. The court reiterates its previous decision.

For the foregoing reasons, the respondent’s motion is denied.

It is so ordered. CT Page 23310