Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00597-IVIRK Document 112-2 Filed 12/07/2004 Page 1 of 2
LEXSEE 2004 CONN. SUPER. LEXIS 3079
Sue Esposito v. G&I Danbury, LLC et al.
CV030347964S
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY
2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3079
October 15, 2004, Decided
October 15, 2004, Filed
NOTICE: [*1] THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED SSR Equipment, Inc. then tiled an appearance on August
AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPELLATE ll, 2004. The plaintiff, in turn, filed a second amended
REVIEW. COUNSEL IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN complaint, dated August 20, 2004, within twenty days
INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE thereof; pursuant to General Statutes § 52—102a(c),
STATUS OF THIS CASE. which added a fourth count, which was directed against
SSR Equipment, Inc., also sounding in negligence.
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes However, the filing of the second amended complaint
was more than three years after the underlying act of
negligence complained of in the original complaint.
JUDGES: Shay’ J` The question before the court was whether or not the
_ laintiffs statutory ri ht to assert a claim against a third-
OPINIONBY` Shay garty defendant by wiy of an amended complaint within
OPINION twenty days after he has filed an appearance takes the
' claim out of the applicable statute of limitations. The
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION court heard argument by counsel and took the papers.
The third-party defendant, SSR Equipment, Inc., has Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if
moved for summary judgment with regard to the fourth the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted
count of the plaintiffs second amended complaint, on the show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
grounds that it is barred by the applicable statute of and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
limitations. The plaintiff argues that the provisions of matter of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
General Statutes § 52-102a(c) control, and that the Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205, 209,
complaint against the recently impleaded party is not so 757 A.2d 1059 (2000). [*3] In Vincent v. Litchfield
barred. Farms, Inc., 2/ Conn.App. 524, 528, 574 A.2d 834
A Complaint, dated December 20, 2002, was med (1990), a case virtually on all fours with the present case,
. . . . . the Appellate Court decided the very issue raised by the
with this court alleging negligence against three separate . .
. . . . plaintiff There, the court found that the amendment of a
defendants, all arising out of an incident that occurred on . . . . .
. . complaint to include a third-party defendant 1S time-
January 3, 2001. On June 20, 2003, one of the original b d t th t U .1, .t . fl d ft th . d fth
defendants, REI Property & Asset Management, Inc., ami as O a pa I .1 is 1 6 3 Cr 6 perio O ,€
. applicable statute of lrmrtatrons has run. The trial courts
moved to implead A to Z Property Management, Inc. as mm of Summar .ud mem as S Sm d
a third-party defendant. The motion was granted. By g Y1 g W u nc `
motion dated May 21, 2004, the third-party defendant, A Here, the original action sounds in negligence and is
to Z Property Management, in turn, sought permission to controlled by General Statutes § 52-584, which provides
implead SSR Equipment, Inc. The motion was granted, in part that: "No action to recover damages for injury to
and a third-party complaint, [*2] dated July 15, 2004, the person . . . caused by negligence . . . shall be brought
was served upon SSR Equipment, Inc. on July 21, 2004. but within two years from the date when the injury is

Case 3:03-cv-00597-IVIRK Document 112-2 Filed 12/07/2004 Page 2 of 2
Page 2
2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3079, *
first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the motion
reasonable care should have been discovered, and except for summary judgment as to the defendant SSR
that no such action may be brought more than three years Equipment, Inc., as set forth in the fourth count of the
from the date of the act or omission complained of . . ." It amended complaint, is GRANTED.
is uncontroverted that the filing of the second amended The Colm
complaint against the third-party defendant SSR
Equipment, Inc. was made well after the three-year Shay, J.
limitation had passed. [*4]