2006 Ct. Sup. 23357
No. HHB-CV-04-0527197S.Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain at New Britain.
December 7, 2006.
ARTICULATION
JULIUS J. KREMSKI., J.T.R.
The plaintiff’s Motion for Articulation, dated May 12, 2006 is granted.
The court’s articulation as requested, follows.
The defendant requests articulation by the court of its denial of the defendant’s motion to reopen and set aside its judgment. The motion was filed on March 3, 2006 with the court’s denial of the motion filed on April 25, 2006.
The defendants motions was based upon an affidavit by O G Industries, Inc., which questioned the authority of a witness at the trial to speak for O G Industries, Inc., and questioned the authenticity of certain correspondence presented as being from O G Industries.
The court determined that the testimony which the defendant contends contradicts that of a witness at the initial trial and could result in a different judgment, was available to the defendant at the time of the trial but was not presented. Further, the defendant has not claimed that the evidence presented at the trial was fraudulent or presented to deceive the court nor that a good cause of action or defense existed at the time of judgment nor that the defendant was prevented by mistake or accident from presenting a defense.
Also, the plaintiff’s witness’ testimony which the defendant proposes to attack upon a reopening of the judgment was subject to a cross-examination by the defendant at the time of the initial trial and available to respond to the questions the defendant now seeks to present upon the reopening of the judgment.
The court finds that the defendant has failed to sufficiently prove that the motion to reopen should be granted. CT Page 23358 CT Page 23359