2009 Ct. Sup. 1888
No. CV05 4003464 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Danbury at Danbury
January 23, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO REARGUE
SHABAN, J.
On December 17, 2008 the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for contempt following an evidentiary hearing. The defendant Barry M. Klein has filed a motion to reargue pursuant to Practice Book § 11-11.
“[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 court . . . [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). See als Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade, 286 Conn. 177, 189, 942 A.2d 1028
(2008); Gibbs v. Spinner, 103 Conn.App. 502, 507, 930 A.2d 53
(2007).
Defendant’s motion, accompanied by a memorandum of law, simply re-challenges the factual issues which were already presented at trial. In effect, the defendant requests that the court change its conclusions based on the defendant’s interpretation of the facts presented at trial as well as his own assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. It also challenges the legal basis for a finding of contempt on grounds that were already, or could have been, addressed at the hearing.
The defendant has failed to present to the court new facts or new legal authorities that could not have been presented earlier. Doyle v. Abbenante, 89 Conn.App. 658, 665, 875 A.2d 558, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 911, 886 A.2d 425 (2005). Nor does the court find that there has been some principle of law which would have controlling effect and CT Page 1889 which has been overlooked. Opoku v. Grant, supra, 63 Conn.App. 692.
The motion to reargue is denied.
CT Page 1890