Motion for Summary Judgment

Motion for Summary Judgment - 1

Connecticut Judicial Branch

Law Libraries

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................... 3

Section 1: Motion for Summary Judgment ........................................................... 4

Figure 1: Motion for Summary Judgment (Form) ............................................ 18

Table 1: Motion for Summary Judgment or Motion to Strike ............................. 20

Section 2: Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment ....................................... 22

Section 3: Affidavits and Documentary Proof ..................................................... 27

Section 4: Partial Summary Judgment .............................................................. 35

Prepared by Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court Operations,

Judge Support Services, Law Library Services Unit

lawlibrarians@jud.ct.gov

2023 Edition

Motion for Summary Judgment - 2

These guides are provided with the understanding that they represent only a

beginning to research. It is the responsibility of the person doing legal research to

come to his or her own conclusions about the authoritativeness, reliability, validity,

and currency of any resource cited in this research guide.

View our other research guides at

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm

This guide links to advance release opinions on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website

and to case law hosted on Google Scholar and Harvard’s Case Law Access Project.

The online versions are for informational purposes only.

References to online legal research databases refer to in-library use of these

databases. Remote access is not available.

See Also:

• Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim and Setoff to a Civil Complaint

• Motion to Dismiss

• Motion to Strike

• Oral Argument in Civil Matters

• Request to Revise

Connecticut Judicial Branch Website Policies and Disclaimers

https://www.jud.ct.gov/policies.htm

Motion for Summary Judgment - 3

Introduction

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

• Motion for Summary Judgment: “In any action, including administrative

appeals which are enumerated in Section 14-7, any party may move for a

summary judgment as to any claim or defense as a matter of right at any time if

no scheduling order exists and the case has not been assigned for trial. If a

scheduling order has been entered by the court, either party may move for

summary judgment as to any claim or defense as a matter of right by the time

specified in the scheduling order. If no scheduling order exists but the case has

been assigned for trial, a party must move for permission of the judicial authority

to file a motion for summary judgment. These rules shall be applicable to

counterclaims and cross complaints, so that any party may move for summary

judgment upon any counterclaim or cross complaint as if it were an independent

action. The pendency of a motion for summary judgment shall delay trial only at

the discretion of the trial judge” Conn. Practice Book § 17-44 (2023).

• Supporting Documents: “A motion for summary judgment shall be supported

by appropriate documents, including but not limited to affidavits, certified

transcripts of testimony under oath, disclosures, written admissions and other

supporting documents.” Conn. Practice Book § 17-45(a) (2023).

• Opposition to Summary Judgment: “Unless otherwise ordered by the judicial

authority, any adverse party shall file and serve a response to the motion for

summary judgment within forty-five days of the filing of the motion, including

opposing affidavits and other available documentary evidence.” Conn. Practice

Book § 17-45(b) (2023).

• Affidavits: “Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal

knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and

shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters

stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to

in an affidavit shall be attached thereto.” Conn. Practice Book § 17-46 (2023).

• Judgment: “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,

affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as

to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Conn. Practice Book § 17-49 (2023).

• Material Fact: “is a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case.”

Hospital of Central Connecticut v. Neurosurgical Associates, P.C., 139 Conn. App.

778, 783, 57 A.3d 794 (2012).

• Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability: “A summary judgment,

interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone,

although there is a genuine issue as to damages. In such case the judicial

authority shall order an immediate hearing before a judge trial referee, before

the court, or before a jury, whichever may be proper, to determine the amount of

the damages. If the determination is by a jury, the usual procedure for setting

aside the verdict shall be applicable. Upon the conclusion of these proceedings,

the judicial authority shall forthwith render the appropriate summary judgment.”

Conn. Practice Book § 17-50 (2023).

Motion for Summary Judgment - 4

Section 1: Motion for Summary Judgment

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to general information on

motions for summary judgment.

DEFINITIONS:

• Summary judgment: “is a method of resolving litigation

when pleadings, affidavits, and any other proof submitted

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law….The motion for summary judgment is

designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an

issue when there is no real issue to be tried....The test for

granting summary judgment is whether the moving party

would be entitled to a directed verdict on the same facts....

The test for granting summary judgment is whether the

moving party would be entitled to a directed verdict on the

same facts.” Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279,

567 A.2d 829 (1989).

• Standard of Review: “Practice Book [§ 17-49] provides

that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the

pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.... In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the

trial court must view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party.” Robinson v. Cianfarani,

314 Conn. 521, 524, 107 A.3d 375 (2014).

• Trial court function: “[T]he trial court does not sit as the

trier of fact when ruling on a motion for summary

judgment.... [Its] function is not to decide issues of

material fact, but rather to determine whether any such

issues exist.” Vestuti v. Miller, 124 Conn. App. 138, 142, 3

A.3d 1046 (2010).

COURT RULES:

• Connecticut Practice Book (2023)

§ 11-10. Requirement That Memorandum of Law Be

Filed with Certain Motions.

§ 17-44. Summary Judgments; Scope of Remedy.

§ 17-45. --Proceedings upon Motion for Summary

Judgment; Request for Extension of Time to

Respond.

§ 17-46. --Form of Affidavits.

§ 17-47. --When Appropriate Documents Are

Unavailable

§ 17-48. --Affidavits Made in Bad Faith

§ 17-49. --Judgment

§ 17-50. --Triable Issue as to Damages Only

§ 17-51. --Judgment for Part of Claim

§ 19-3. Reference to Judge Trial Referee

Amendments to the

Practice Book (Court

Rules) are published

in the Connecticut

Law Journal and

posted online.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 5

FORMS:

• 2 Connecticut Practice Series, Connecticut Civil Practice

Forms, 4th ed., by Joel M. Kaye et al., Thomson West,

2004, with 2022 supplement (Also available on Westlaw).

Form 106.15. Motion for Summary Judgment

• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Civil Pretrial Practice

Margaret P. Mason, editor, 2022 ed., LexisNexis.

§ 16.21. Form: Motion for Summary Judgment

§ 16.22. Form: Memorandum of Law in Support of

Motion for Summary Judgment

§ 16.23. Form: Affidavit in Support of Motion for

Summary Judgment

• 18 Connecticut Practice Series, Summary Judgment &

Related Termination Motions, by Erin Carlson, 2023 ed.,

Thomson West (Also available on Westlaw).

Chapter 3. Summary Judgment or Summary

Adjudication

VI. Sample Forms

§ 3:127. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

§ 3:128. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Notice of motion for summary judgment

§ 3:129. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Negligence action — Failure to produce evidence

of injury caused by breach of duty — Motion

§ 3:130. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Action alleging violation of franchise act and unfair

trade practices act — Defendant not a “franchise”

within meaning of statute — Motion

§ 3:131. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Memorandum of points and authorities in support

of motion for summary judgment — Defamation

§ 3:132. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Memorandum of points and authorities in support

of motion for summary judgment — Negligence

action against municipal fire department

§ 3:133. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Memorandum of points and authorities in support

of motion for summary judgment — Negligence

action against bus owner

Motion for Summary Judgment - 6

§ 3:134. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Memorandum of points and authorities in support

of motion for summary judgment – Negligence

action against owner of premises

§ 3:135. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Memorandum of points and authorities in support

of motion for summary judgment – Negligence

action against power company barred by res

adjudicata

§ 3:136. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Memorandum of points and authorities in support

of motion for summary judgment – Negligence

action against water authority

§ 3:139. Sample supporting and opposition briefs

— Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Request for judicial notice in support of motion for

summary judgment

• Library of Connecticut Collection Law Forms, Robert M.

Singer, Connecticut Law Tribune, 2016.

6. Actions for Accounting

6-012. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

Liquidated Damages Provision, page 275

9. Motions

9-020. Motion for Summary Judgment (plaintiff’s

motion), page 499

9-032. Motion for Summary Judgment (defendant’s

motion), page 549

11. Special Defenses

11-013. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment—

Limitation of Liability Clause

19. Attorney Collection of Fees

19-006. Motion for Summary Judgment on

Counterclaim—Based on Statute of Limitations,

page 1133

• Civil Litigation in Connecticut: Anatomy of a Lawsuit, by

Kimberly A. Peterson, Prentice Hall, 1998.

Chapter 27. Motion for Summary Judgment

Example 3, Motion for Summary Judgment and

Memorandum of Law pp. 257-260

CASE LAW:

• Carolina Casualty Insurance Company v. Connecticut Solid

Surface LLC., 207 Conn. App. 525, 262 A.3d 885 (2021).

Motion for Summary Judgment - 7

“‘The fundamental purpose of summary judgment is

preventing unnecessary trials.... If a plaintiff is unable to

present sufficient evidence in support of an essential

element of his cause of action at trial, he cannot prevail as

a matter of law.... To avert these types of ill-fated cases

from advancing to trial, following adequate time for

discovery, a plaintiff may properly be called upon at the

summary judgment stage to demonstrate that he possesses

sufficient counterevidence to raise a genuine issue of

material fact as to any, or even all, of the essential

elements of his cause of action....

‘It is not enough ... for the opposing party merely to assert

the existence of such a disputed issue. Mere assertions of

fact ... are insufficient to establish the existence of a

material fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence

properly presented to the court.... [T]ypically

[d]emonstrating a genuine issue requires a showing of

evidentiary facts or substantial evidence outside the

pleadings from which material facts alleged in the pleadings

can be warrantably inferred.... Only if the defendant as the

moving party has submitted no evidentiary proof to rebut

the allegations in the complaint, or the proof submitted fails

to call those allegations into question, may the plaintiff rest

upon factual allegations alone....

‘[I]ssue-finding, rather than issue-determination, is the key

to the procedure.... [T]he trial court does not sit as the trier

of fact when ruling on a motion for summary judgment....

[Its] function is not to decide issues of material fact, but

rather to determine whether any such issues exist.... Our

review of the decision to grant a motion for summary

judgment is plenary.... We therefore must decide whether

the court's conclusions were legally and logically correct

and find support in the record.’ (Citations omitted; footnote

omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Brown v.

Otake, 164 Conn. App. 686, 699-701, 138 A.3d 951

(2016).”

• Reilly v. Reilly, Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-

Norwalk at Stamford, No. FSTCV165015959S (February 21,

2018) (65 Conn. L. Rptr. 905) (2018 WL 1459933) (2018

Conn. Super. LEXIS 349). “There is no appellate authority

settling the issue of the appropriateness of a motion for

summary judgment in a probate appeal. There is a split of

authority in the Superior Courts on this issue. In numerous

decisions, Superior Court judges have determined that

summary judgment motions are appropriate in probate

appeals. . . . In other Superior Court cases, courts have

held that summary judgment is not permitted in an appeal

from probate. . . .This court adopts the reasoning of the

Once you have

identified useful

cases, it is important

to update the cases

before you rely on

them. Updating case

law means checking

to see if the cases

are still good law.

You can contact your

local law librarian to

learn about the tools

available to you to

update cases.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 8

cases which hold that a summary judgment motion is

appropriate in a probate appeal.”

• Soderburg v. Unitrin Preferred Ins. Co., Superior Court,

Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville, No. CV-166010893-

S (July 24, 2018) (2018 WL 3862230) (2018 Conn. Super.

LEXIS 1511). “For each of these three insurers, the latest

possible manifestation date was the last day of the last

policy period for which the policy was effective....The

present action commenced in 2016, more than one year

after the latest possible trigger date for these liabilities

under these policies. All three insurers utilized virtually the

same one-year limitation of action language in their

insurance contracts with the plaintiffs, and, consequently,

these three defendants are entitled to summary judgment

as a matter of law.

The motion by Covenant is denied because there exists

a genuine factual dispute concerning whether the loss,

purportedly covered by its policy, was triggered during the

relevant policy period and was the type of loss for which

Covenant is liable.”

• Kobylanska v. Northstar Condo. Ass'n, Superior Court,

Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, No. CV-

146021406-S, (July 26, 2016) (62 Conn. L. Rptr. 757)

(2016 WL 4507308) (2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2055). “It is

unclear whether the defendant failed to apprehend the now-

identified issues in the complaint when it was first reviewed,

or whether the defendant decided, as a tactical matter, to

raise the deficiency for the first time in order to prevent the

plaintiffs from filing a substitute pleading. The Supreme

Court has considered the circumstances under which it is

appropriate to employ a motion for summary judgment in

situations where the issues might have been addressed by a

motion to strike. In Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394,

400, 876 A.2d 522 (2005), the Supreme Court discussed at

length the differences between a motion to strike and a

motion for summary judgment. The court also noted that

the use of a motion for summary judgment instead of a

motion to strike may be unfair to the nonmoving party

because ‘[t]he granting of a defendant's motion for

summary judgment puts the plaintiff out of court . . . [while

the] granting of a motion to strike allows the plaintiff to

replead his or her case . . . With these authorities in mind,

we conclude that the use of a motion for summary

judgment to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint is

appropriate when the complaint fails to set forth a cause of

action and the defendant can establish that the defect could

not be cured by repleading . . . If it is clear on the face of

the complaint that it is legally insufficient and that an

opportunity to amend it would not help the plaintiff, we can

perceive no reason why the defendant should be prohibited

Once you have

identified useful

cases, it is important

to update the cases

before you rely on

them. Updating case

law means checking

to see if the cases

are still good law.

You can contact your

local law librarian to

learn about the tools

available to you to

update cases.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 9

from claiming that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law and from invoking the only available procedure for

raising such a claim after the pleadings are closed.’

(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

Larobina v. McDonald, supra, 400-02.

Accordingly, in order for the defendant to prevail in its

motion for summary judgment the court must not only

determine that allegations of the complaint are legally

insufficient, but also that affording the plaintiffs the

opportunity to replead would not help them.”

• Brown v. Otake, 164 Conn App. 686, 708, 138 A.3d 951

(2016). “According to the court's articulation, summary

judgment was warranted on the negligent

misrepresentation count because ‘[t]here were no facts

presented that showed negligent representation on the part

of these defendants.’ With respect to the count alleging

intentional misrepresentation, the court articulated that it

granted summary judgment because ‘[t]here were no facts

presented that any misrepresentations were made,

negligent or false.’ On the basis of our review of the record,

including the arguments of the parties at summary

judgment, we construe the court's ruling as holding that the

plaintiff failed to present any evidence rebutting the proof

submitted by the defendants showing that the

representations on which the plaintiff relies as

misrepresentations were never made, thereby establishing

a lack of a genuine issue of material fact on an essential

element necessary to prevail at trial on either

misrepresentation count. That conclusion is legally and

logically correct, and supported by the record. Once the

defendants presented evidence demonstrating the lack of a

genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a

misrepresentation of fact, the evidentiary burden shifted to

the plaintiff, and he could no longer rely solely upon the

allegations in his complaint. To survive summary judgment,

the plaintiff needed to marshal some evidence countering

that submitted by the defendants, and it was not the

court's responsibility to search the evidentiary record

provided by the moving party on his behalf. Having failed to

present any evidence himself or to reference any portion of

the evidence submitted by the defendants, the plaintiff

failed to meet his burden. Accordingly, we conclude that the

court properly granted summary judgment on the

misrepresentation counts as a matter of law.”

• Ramos v. J.J. Mottes Co., Superior Court, Judicial District of

Hartford, CV 09-6006373-S (December 1, 2015) (61 Conn.

L. Rptr. 329) (2015 WL 9595342) (2015 Conn. Super.

LEXIS 2949). “Because a party may now file a motion for

summary judgment even before the pleadings are closed, a

party no longer must plead a time limitation as a special

Once you have

identified useful

cases, it is important

to update the cases

before you rely on

them. Updating case

law means checking

to see if the cases

are still good law.

You can contact your

local law librarian to

learn about the tools

available to you to

update cases.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 10

defense prior to moving for summary judgment. ‘If [the

court] were to hold that a motion for summary judgment

cannot be made prior to pleading a statute of limitations as

a special defense, [the court] would negate that portion of

§[17-44] that provides that a motion for summary

judgment can be made “at any time,” without the necessity

of closing the pleadings.’ (Footnote omitted.) Girard v.

Weiss, 43 Conn. App. 397, 416, 682 A.2d 1078, cert.

denied, 239 Conn. 946, 686 A.2d 121 (1996). ‘When there

is no such material fact in dispute or where there is

agreement of the parties as to every relevant fact, we

conclude that the pleadings need not be closed in order to

move for summary judgment.’ Id., 417. In Girard, the court

held that since the parties did not disagree as to the facts,

the trial court could properly consider the motion for

summary judgment. Id.”

• Glencore, Ltd. v. Winkler, Superior Court, Judicial District of

Stamford-Norwalk, No. CV 13-5014052-S, (Aug. 11, 2015),

(60 Conn. L. Rptr. 806) (2015 WL 5315410) (2015 Conn.

Super. LEXIS 2107). “Essentially as a tautology, a motion

for summary judgment is intended to lead to a ‘judgment.’

The court is unaware of any general authority in

Connecticut for using the summary judgment procedure to

eliminate a defense separate from consideration of the

merits of the claim to which it is claimed to be applicable

(as opposed to rendering judgment in favor of a defendant

based on a defense)—deleting a defense but without

issuance of any order coming with the scope of the concept

of ‘judgment.’ Thus, Practice Book § 17–49, relating to the

consequences of a successful motion for summary

judgment, provides: ‘The judgment sought shall be

rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other

proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.’ A judgment can enter on a

successful motion for summary judgment by a defendant on

a special defense (assuming it to be a complete defense, as

opposed to a partial defense such as comparative

negligence), as that would result in a judgment for the

defendant on plaintiff's complaint. Summary judgment for a

plaintiff successfully disproving a defense but not proving

the merits of its own claim would result in a ruling

characterized as…?”

• Robinson v. Cianfarani, 314 Conn. 521, 524, 107 A.3d 375

(2014). “We begin by setting forth the applicable standard

of review. ‘The standards governing our review of a trial

court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment

are well established. Practice Book [§ 17-49] provides that

summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the

pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

Once you have

identified useful

cases, it is important

to update the cases

before you rely on

them. Updating case

law means checking

to see if the cases

are still good law.

You can contact your

local law librarian to

learn about the tools

available to you to

update cases.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 11

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.... In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the

trial court must view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party.... The party seeking

summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence

of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under

applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a

judgment as a matter of law ... and the party opposing

such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to

demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material

fact.... A material fact ... [is] a fact which will make a

difference in the result of the case.’ (Internal quotation

marks omitted.) Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America,

310 Conn. 304, 312, 77 A.3d 726 (2013). ‘When ... the trial

court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and

we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and

logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in

the record.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vendrella

v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership, 311 Conn. 301, 313, 87

A.3d 546 (2014).”

• Mott v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 139 Conn. App. 618, 628,

57 A.3d 391, 397 (2012). “To prevail on a motion for

summary judgment, however, the defendant had an

obligation to negate the factual claims as framed by the

complaint. To that end, it was incumbent on the defendant

to provide the court with more than its belief that it was

‘readily evident’ that the plaintiff ultimately would be unable

to meet his obligation at trial to produce evidence to prove

that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the

alleged defect. In other words, before the plaintiff had

acquired any obligation to produce evidence that would

tend to show that the defendant, in fact, had notice of the

defect, the defendant had the burden of producing

evidentiary support for its assertion that its lack of notice

was an undisputed fact.”

• Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. Morin, 125 Conn. App.

165, 169-70, 7 A.3d 919, 921 (2010). “Before addressing

the merits of the plaintiff's arguments, we must address our

authority to consider them. Ordinarily, the denial of a

motion for summary judgment is not appealable. Brown &

Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 288 Conn. 646, 653, 954 A.2d

816 (2008). That rule does not apply, however, if the

moving party was not afforded the opportunity to have a

full trial on the merits. Bristol v. Vogelsonger, 21 Conn.App.

600, 609, 575 A.2d 252 (1990). Because the trial court in

this case granted the defendant's motion for summary

judgment, the plaintiff's appeal falls within this exception to

the general rule, and, accordingly, it is properly before us.”

• Maltas v. Maltas, 298 Conn. 354, 370, 2 A.3d (2010). “The

trial court apparently concluded that, because as a general

Motion for Summary Judgment - 12

matter, foreign judgments are presumed valid and the

burden of proving that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction

lies with the assailant; see Packer Plastics, Inc. v. Laundon,

supra, 214 Conn. 57; it was necessary for the defendant, at

this stage of the proceedings, to satisfy that burden. We

disagree with that determination. Rather, the burden of

proof on a motion for summary judgment remains with the

moving party even when, as here, the nonmoving party will

bear the burden of persuasion at trial. ‘Although the burden

of setting aside [a foreign default] judgment rests upon the

party against whom it is sought to be enforced ... where the

personal jurisdiction issue is resolved on summary

judgment, it is the moving party's burden to establish that

there is no genuine issue of material fact, and an

entitlement to prevail as a matter of law.... In resolving this

question, we treat the proffered materials in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party.’....

Because the plaintiff sought summary disposition of this

matter, thereby depriving the defendant of the right to a

trial, the plaintiff bore the heavy burden of showing that

there were no real issues to be tried and that judgment in

his favor unquestionably was warranted as a matter of law.

Because the plaintiff failed to make that showing, the trial

court improperly rendered summary judgment in his favor.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for

further proceedings according to law.”

• Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 288 Conn. 646, 653,

954 A.2d 816 (2008). “In the present case, the plaintiff

appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion for

summary judgment. The denial of a motion for summary

judgment does not result in a judgment, however, and no

judgment therefore was rendered. ‘As a general rule, an

interlocutory ruling may not be appealed pending the final

disposition of a case. See, e.g., Doublewal Corp. v.

Toffolon, 195 Conn. 384, 388, 488 A.2d 444 (1985); see

also State v. Curcio, [supra, 191 Conn. at 30, 463 A.2d

566] (right of appeal is purely statutory and is limited to

appeals by aggrieved parties from final judgments). The

denial of a motion for summary judgment ordinarily is an

interlocutory ruling and, accordingly, not a final judgment

for purposes of appeal. See, e.g., Connecticut National

Bank v. Rytman, 241 Conn. 24, 34, 694 A.2d 1246

(1997).’”

• Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, et al., 81 Conn. App.

798, 802, 842 A.2d 1134 (2004). “Because litigants

ordinarily have a constitutional right to have issues of fact

decided by the finder of fact, the party moving for summary

judgment is held to a strict standard. ‘[H]e must make a

showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that

excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine

Motion for Summary Judgment - 13

issue of material fact.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Town Bank & Trust Co. v. Benson, 176 Conn. 304, 307, 407

A.2d 971 (1978). A material fact is a fact that will make a

difference in the result of the case. Hammer v.

Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 214 Conn. 573, 578,

573 A.2d 699 (1990). ‘[T]he burden of showing the

nonexistence of any material fact is on the party seeking

summary judgment . . . . It is not enough for the moving

party merely to assert the absence of any disputed factual

issue; the moving party is required to bring forward . . .

evidentiary facts, or substantial evidence outside the

pleadings to show the absence of any material dispute.’

(Emphasis in original; citation omitted; internal quotation

marks omitted.) Doty v. Shawmut Bank, 58 Conn. App.

427, 430, 755 A.2d 219 (2000). The party opposing

summary judgment must present a factual predicate for his

argument to raise a genuine issue of fact. Wadia

Enterprises, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, 224 Conn. 240, 250, 618

A.2d 506 (1992). Once raised, if it is not conclusively

refuted by the moving party, a genuine issue of fact exists,

and summary judgment is inappropriate.

The court is required to view the facts presented in a

motion for summary judgment in the light most favorable

to the party opposing the motion. Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.,

196 Conn. 91, 111, 491 A.2d 368 (1985). ‘[I]ssue-finding,

rather than issue-determination, is the key to the

procedure.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Michaud v.

Gurney, 168 Conn. 431, 433, 362 A.2d 857 (1975). ‘[T]he

trial court does not sit as the trier of fact when ruling on a

motion for summary judgment. . . . [Its] function is not to

decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine

whether any such issues exist.’ (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Kroll v. Sebastian, 58 Conn. App. 262, 265, 753

A.2d 384 (2000).”

• Krevis v. City of Bridgeport, 262 Conn. 813, 823, 817 A. 2d

628 (2003). “In the present case, the colloquy between the

plaintiff's counsel and the court reveals that the plaintiff's

counsel was well aware of the procedural requirements for

a motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, after having

conferred with his client, the plaintiff's counsel asked the

court to rule immediately on the question of law in order to

avoid presenting evidence for several days, after which the

court might grant a motion for a directed verdict. We are

satisfied on this record that the plaintiff's counsel knowingly

waived compliance with the procedural provisions of the

Practice Book relating to motions for summary judgment.”

• Dugan v. Mobile Medical Testing Services, Inc. et al., 265

Conn. 791, 814, 830 A.2d 752 (2003). “Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we

are required to do in determining the propriety of a ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment - 14

on a defendant's motion for summary judgment, we cannot

reject the plaintiff's interpretation of Keefe's actual

statement. We conclude that, in light of the nature of the

services performed, as well as the totality of the

circumstances of this case, the plaintiff's interpretation of

Keefe's statement certainly is a fair and reasonable one.

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court's decision is

inconsistent with the proper standards governing rulings on

motions for summary judgment. We have held that

summary judgment ‘is appropriate only if a fair and

reasonable person could conclude only one way.’ Miller v.

United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732, 751, 660 A.2d

810 (1995);”

• R.I. Waterman Prop., Inc. v. Misiorski, 51 Conn. App. 659,

661, 725 A.2d 340, 341 (1999). “We agree with the

defendants that until the motion for permission to file a

summary judgment motion is granted, § 17-45 does not

come into effect. Once notice is given of the granting of

permission to file a summary judgment motion, the motion

for summary judgment should be placed on the short

calendar not fewer than fifteen days from the giving of the

notice. This gives the adverse party the opportunity to file

opposing affidavits and other available documentary

evidence as set forth in § 17-45.”

• Mac's Car City, Inc. v. American National Bank, 205 Conn.

255, 262, 532 A.2d 1302 (1987). “Accordingly, we hold

that it is within the trial court's discretion to consider a

renewed motion for summary judgment that has previously

been denied where, as here, additional or new evidence has

been submitted which was not before the court in ruling

upon the earlier motion for summary judgment. See 73 Am.

Jur.2d 733, Summary Judgment § 12. We must caution,

however, that our holding today should not be construed to

condone future unnecessary piecemeal litigation brought on

by the repeated filing of successive motions for summary

judgment.”

WEST KEY

NUMBERS:

• 368H Summary Judgment

I. In General, k1-k10

II. Questions Considered on Summary Judgment, k11-k40

III. Grounds for Summary Judgment; Factors Considered,

k41-k70

IV. Ascertaining Whether Fact Issue Exists, k71-k100

V. Particular Cases and Contexts, k101-k270

VI. Proceedings, k271-k365

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

• 73 Am. Jur. 2d Summary Judgment, Thomson West, 2023

(Also available on Westlaw).

I. In general

Motion for Summary Judgment - 15

II. Actions, Matters, and Proceedings in Which

Authorized or Available

III. Application or Motion; Opposition; Effect of Failure

to Properly Support or Address Fact

A. Application or Motion

C. Establishing that Particular Fact is or Cannot be

Genuinely Disputed

IV. Determination; Governing Rules, Principles, and

Considerations

V. Scope of Relief; Order and Judgment

• 49 C.J.S. Judgments, Thomson West, 2021 (Also available

on Westlaw).

X. Judgment on Motion or Summary Proceedings

A. In general

B. Cases in Which Allowed

C. Proceedings on Motion for Summary Judgment

TEXTS &

TREATISES:

• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Civil Pretrial Practice

Margaret P. Mason, editor, 2022 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 16. Summary Judgment

Part I: Statute and Rule Locator

§ 16.01. Statutes and Practice Book Rules

Part II: Practical Guidance

§ 16.02. Overview of Grounds for Summary

Judgment

§ 16.03. There Must Be No Genuine Issue of

Material Fact

§ 16.04. Partial Summary Judgment is Allowed

§ 16.05. Timing of Motion for Summary

Judgment

§ 16.06. Preparation, Filing and Service of

Motion for Summary Judgment

§ 16.07. Filing and Serving Opposition to Motion

for Summary Judgment

§ 16.08. Filing and Serving Reply in Support of

Motion for Summary Judgment

§ 16.09. Overview of Evidence and Hearing on

Summary Judgment

§ 16.10. Submitting Affidavit in Support of

Motion, Opposition, or Reply

§ 16.11. Hearing on Motion for Summary

Judgment

§ 16.12. Overview of Decision on Motion for

Summary Judgment

§ 16.13. Determine Whether Summary

Judgment Order is Final Judgment

§ 16.14. Overview of Reconsideration or

Correction of, or Relief from, Decision on Motion

for Summary Judgment

§ 16.15. Decision Granting Summary Judgment

is Subject to Motion to Reconsider or Reargue

Each of our law

libraries own the

Connecticut

treatises cited. You

can contact us or

visit our catalog to

determine which of

our law libraries

own the other

treatises cited or to

search for more

treatises.

References to

online databases

refer to in-library

use of these

databases. Remote

access is not

available.

Encyclopedias and

ALRs are available in

print at some law

library locations and

accessible online at

all law library

locations.

Online databases are

available for

in-library use.

Remote access is not

available.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 16

§ 16.16. Denial of Summary Judgment Motion is

Subject to Motion to Renew

§ 16.17. Summary Judgment is Subject to

Motion to Open or Set Aside

§ 16.18. Overview of Appeal of Decision on

Motion for Summary Judgment

§ 16.19. Grant of Summary Judgment on All

Claims Against a Party is Appealable

§ 16.20. Denial of Summary Judgment is

Generally Not Appealable

• 18 Connecticut Practice Series, Summary Judgment &

Related Termination Motions, by Erin Carlson, 2023 ed.,

Thomson West (Also available on Westlaw).

Chapter 3. Summary Judgment or Summary

Adjudication

• 2 Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice, by Ralph Dupont,

2022-2023 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 17. Judgments.

G. Summary Judgments

§ 17-44. Summary Judgments; Scope of

Remedy

§ 17-44.1 In General

§ 17-44.2 Available in Most Civil Actions, and

Certain Appeals, Including Probate

§ 17-45. Proceedings Upon Motion for Summary

Judgment; Request for Extension of Time to

Respond

§ 17-45.1. Summary Judgment; Order of

Pleading

§ 17-45.2 Technical Defects in Motion or

Proceedings

§ 17-45.3 Supporting Documents; Unsworn

Statements and Reports Prohibited

§ 17-49. Judgment [On Motion for Summary

Judgment]

§ 17-49.1 Absence of Genuine Issue of

Material Fact

• Civil Litigation in Connecticut: Anatomy of a Lawsuit,

Kimberly A. Peterson, Prentice Hall, 1998.

Chapter 27. Motions for Summary Judgment

• Pleadings and Pretrial Practice: A Deskbook for Connecticut

Litigators, Jeanine M. Dumont, Connecticut Law Tribune,

1998 ed.

Chapter XI. Motion for Summary Judgment

• Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure, by Renee

Bevacqua Bollier, Atlantic Law Book Co., 1997, with 2014

supplement.

Chapter 9. Disposition Short of Trial.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 17

§ 100. Summary Judgment.

• Connecticut Law of Torts, 4th ed., by Hon. Douglass B.

Wright et al., Atlantic Law Book Company, 2018, with 2022

supplement.

Chapter XXIII – Procedural and Collateral Matters

§ 193. Summary Judgments in Negligence Actions

LAW REVIEWS:

• Alexander I. Platt, Unstacking the Deck: Administrative

Summary Judgment and Political Control, Yale Journal on

Regulation, Volume 34, Issue 2, 439, 2017.

• Corey M. Dennis, Roadmap to Connecticut Procedure,

Connecticut Bar Journal, Volume 83, Issue 4, 271 (2009).

• Samuel Issacharoff and George Loewenstein, Second

Thoughts about Summary Judgment, Yale Law Journal,

Volume 100, Issue 1, 73, 1990.

• Gale Keane Busemeyer, Summary Judgment and the ADEA

Claimant: Problems and Patterns of Proof [comments]

Connecticut Law Review, Volume 21, Issue 1, 99, (Fall

1988).

Public access to law

review databases is

available on-site at

each of our law

libraries.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 18

Figure 1: Motion for Summary Judgment (Form)

Form 105.1, Heading and Form 106.15, Motion for Summary Judgment.

No. _________________________

_____________________________

(First Named Plaintiff)

_____________________________

(First Named Defendant)

Superior Court

Judicial District of ____________

at _________________________

___________________________

(Date)

Motion for Summary Judgment

(Motion By the Plaintiff)

The plaintiff claims that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in the

complaint and moves for a summary judgment and submits herewith the following

affidavits and other documentary proof:

(list items attached)

(Motion By the Plaintiff – Liability Only)

The plaintiff claims that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect

to liability and moves for a summary judgment interlocutory in character on the

issue of liability alone, and submits herewith the following affidavits and other

documentary proof:

(list items attached)

The plaintiff further moves for an order for an immediate hearing before a referee (or

the court or the jury) to determine the amount of the damages.

(Motion By the Defendant)

The defendant claims that

the action is barred by the statute of limitations

the action is res adjudicata

the action is barred by laches

the plaintiff is estopped from making the claims set forth in the complaint

he was not the owner of the automobile involved in the collision, as alleged in the

complaint

there is no genuine issue as to the utterance of the alleged slander

Motion for Summary Judgment - 19

(other defense claimed)

and moves for a summary judgment, and submits herewith the following affidavits

and other documentary proof:

(list items attached)

AFFIDAVIT

(Name and residence) being duly sworn, does hereby depose and say

1. This affidavit is made on my own personal knowledge.

2. I am ____ years of age and competent to testify to the matters stated herein.

3. (Set forth facts relevant and admissible in evidence)

Subscribed and sworn to before me (date)

__________________________________

([Title of Person Taking Oath)

[Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit

shall be attached thereto (Rules, § 17-46).]

(P.B.1963, Form 536; P.B.1978, Form 106.15 see Rules, §§ 17-44 through 17-51.)

[Indicate at bottom of first page whether oral argument or testimony is requested,

per P.B. § 11-18]

Motion for Summary Judgment - 20

Table 1: Motion for Summary Judgment or Motion to Strike

Larobina v. McDondald, 274 Conn. 394, 399-403, 876 A.2d 522 (2005). “We first address

the plaintiff's claim that a motion for summary judgment is an improper vehicle by which

to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. ‘Practice Book [§ 17-49] provides that

summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other

proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . In deciding a motion for

summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the nonmoving party. . . . The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of

showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable

principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law . . . and the

party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the

existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Practice Book [§ 17-46].’ (Citations omitted;

internal quotation marks omitted.) Witt v. St. Vincent's Medical Center, 252 Conn. 363,

368, 746 A.2d 753 (2000).

In contrast, ‘[a] motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading, and,

consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court. . . . We take the facts to be

those alleged in the complaint . . . and we construe the complaint in the manner most

favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency. . . . [I]f facts provable in the complaint would

support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied. . . . Thus, we assume the

truth of both the specific factual allegations and any facts fairly provable thereunder. In

doing so, moreover, we read the allegations broadly, rather than narrowly.’ (Citation

omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Craig v. Driscoll, 262 Conn. 312, 321, 813

A.2d 1003 (2002).

Our case law addressing the question of whether a motion for summary judgment may be

used instead of a motion to strike to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint and, if

so, under what circumstances, requires some clarification. In Boucher Agency,

Inc. v. Zimmer, 160 Conn. 404, 408-409, 279 A.2d 540 (1971), this court suggested

that, in light of the similarities between the procedures, the use of a motion for summary

judgment for such a purpose is proper. See also Pane v. Danbury, 267 Conn. 669, 674

n.7, 841 A.2d 684 (2004) (allowing use of motion for summary judgment to challenge

legal sufficiency of complaint when plaintiff did not raise objection in trial

court); Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17, 32 n.17, 699 A.2d 964 (1997)

(treating motion for summary judgment as motion to strike); Hossan v. Hudiakoff, 178

Conn. 381, 382 n.1, 423 A.2d 108 (1970) (court declined to consider whether use of

motion for summary judgment instead of motion to strike was procedurally proper when

motion to strike properly would have been granted); Gaudino v. East Hartford, 87 Conn.

App. 353, 357-58, 865 A.2d 470 (2005) (motion for summary judgment may be used to

challenge legal sufficiency of complaint); but see Burke v. Avitabile, 32 Conn. App. 765,

772, 630 A.2d 624 (purpose of motion for summary judgment is not to test legal

sufficiency of complaint but to test for presence of contested factual issues), cert.

denied, 228 Conn. 908, 634 A.2d 297 (1993). We also have recognized, however, that

the use of a motion for summary judgment instead of a motion to strike may be unfair to

the nonmoving party because ‘[t]he granting of a defendant's motion for summary

judgment puts the plaintiff out of court . . . [while the] granting of a motion to strike

allows the plaintiff to replead his or her case.’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks

omitted.) Pane v. Danbury, supra, 674 n.7, quoting Rivera v. Double A Transportation,

Motion for Summary Judgment - 21

Inc., 248 Conn. 21, 38 n.3, 727 A.2d 204 (1999) (Berdon, J., dissenting);

cf. Kroll v. Steere, 60 Conn. App. 376, 384 n.6, 759 A.2d 541 (motion for summary

judgment may be treated as motion to strike when plaintiff did not claim that she should

have been allowed to replead), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 909, 763 A.2d 1035 (2000).

With these authorities in mind, we conclude that the use of a motion for summary

judgment to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint is appropriate when the

complaint fails to set forth a cause of action and the defendant can establish that the

defect could not be cured by repleading. See Boucher Agency, Inc. v. Zimmer, supra, 160

Conn. 410. If it is clear on the face of the complaint that it is legally insufficient and that

an opportunity to amend it would not help the plaintiff, we can perceive no reason why

the defendant should be prohibited from claiming that he is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law and from invoking the only available procedure for raising such a claim after

the pleadings are closed. See Practice Book § 10-7 (filing of answer constitutes waiver of

right to file motion to strike complaint). ‘It is incumbent on a plaintiff to allege some

recognizable cause of action in his complaint.. . . Thus, failure by the defendants to

demur to any portion of the . . . complaint does not prevent them from claiming that the

[plaintiff] had no cause of action and that a judgment [in favor of the defendants was]

warranted.’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Brill v. Ulrey, 159 Conn.

371, 374, 269 A.2d 262 (1970). Moreover, this court repeatedly ‘has recognized that the

desire for judicial efficiency inherent in the summary judgment procedure would be

frustrated if parties were forced to try a case where there was no real issue to be

tried.’ Fernandez v. Estate of Ayers, 56 Conn. App. 332, 334-35, 742 A.2d 836 (2000)

(citing cases).

In addition, we will not reverse the trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment

that was used to challenge the legal sufficiency of the complaint when it is clear that the

motion was being used for that purpose and the nonmoving party, by failing to object to

the procedure before the trial court, cannot demonstrate prejudice. A plaintiff should not

be allowed to argue to the trial court that his complaint is legally sufficient and then argue

on appeal that the trial court should have allowed him to amend his pleading to render it

legally sufficient. ‘Our rules of procedure do not allow a [party] to pursue one course of

action at trial and later, on appeal, argue that a path he rejected should now be open to

him. . . . To rule otherwise would permit trial by ambuscade.’ (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 207, 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, 541

U.S. 908, 124 S. Ct. 1614, L. Ed. 2d 254 (2004).

In the present case, the plaintiff stated in his brief to the trial court that the defendants

were using the motion for summary judgment to challenge the legal sufficiency of his

complaint. He then argued that the complaint was legally sufficient. We conclude,

therefore, that he has waived any objection to the use of the motion for that purpose and

any claim that he should be permitted to replead. Moreover, it is clear that the plaintiff

has no further facts to allege that would cure the legal defects identified in this complaint.

Accordingly, we consider the merits of the trial court's determination that the complaint

was legally insufficient. ‘Because a motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a

pleading and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court, our review of

the court's ruling on the [defendants' motion] is plenary.’ (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Commissioner of Labor v. C.J.M. Services, Inc., 268 Conn. 283, 292, 842 A.2d

1124 (2004).”

Motion for Summary Judgment - 22

Section 2: Objection to Motion for Summary

Judgment

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to objections to motions for

summary judgment.

DEFINITIONS:

• “Unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority, any

adverse party shall file and serve a response to the motion

for summary judgment within forty-five days of the filing of

the motion, including opposing affidavits and other

available documentary evidence.” Conn. Practice Book §

17-45(b) (2023).

• “A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must

provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the

existence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Barlow v.

Palmer, 96 Conn. App. 88, 92, 898 A.2d 835, 837-38

(2006).

COURT RULES:

• Connecticut Practice Book (2023)

§ 11-10. Requirement That Memorandum of Law Be

Filed with Certain Motions.

§ 17-44. Summary Judgments; Scope of Remedy.

§ 17-45. --Proceedings upon Motion for Summary

Judgment; Request for Extension of Time to

Respond.

§ 17-46. --Form of Affidavits.

§ 17-47. --When Appropriate Documents Are

Unavailable

§ 17-48. --Affidavits Made in Bad Faith

§ 17-49. --Judgment

§ 17-50. --Triable Issue as to Damages Only

§ 17-51. --Judgment for Part of Claim

FORMS:

• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Civil Pretrial Practice

Margaret P. Mason, editor, 2022 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 16. Summary Judgment

§ 16.24. Form: Opposition to Motion for Summary

Judgment

§ 16.25. Form: Affidavit in Support of Opposition to

Motion for summary Judgment

§ 16.26. Form: Reply in Support of Motion for

Summary Judgment

• 18 Connecticut Practice Series, Summary Judgment &

Related Termination Motions, by Erin Carlson, 2023 ed.,

Thomson West (Also available on Westlaw).

Chapter 3. Summary Judgment or Summary

Adjudication

VI. Sample Forms

Amendments to the

Practice Book (Court

Rules) are published

in the Connecticut

Law Journal and

posted online.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 23

§ 3:141. Sample supporting and opposition briefs —

Motion for summary judgment — Plaintiff's

opposition — Memorandum of points and authorities

in opposition to motion for summary judgment

§ 3:142. Sample supporting and opposition briefs -

Motion for summary judgment — Plaintiff's

opposition — Memorandum of points and authorities

in opposition to motion for partial summary

judgment — Negligent and intentional infliction of

emotional distress

§ 3:143. Sample supporting and opposition briefs —

Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Plaintiff's opposition — Written objections to

evidence submitted in support of motion for

summary judgment

§ 3:144. Sample supporting and opposition briefs —

Motion for summary judgment by defendant —

Plaintiff's opposition — Reply memorandum in

support of motion — Dispute arising from supply of

municipal water to restaurant

• Civil Litigation in Connecticut: Anatomy of a Lawsuit, by

Kimberly A. Peterson, Prentice Hall, 1998.

Chapter 27. Motion for Summary Judgment

Example 2, Objection to Motion for Summary

Judgment Interlocutory in Character, p. 256.

• Library of Connecticut Employment Law Forms, Joseph D.

Garrison, editor, Connecticut Law Tribune, 2011.

Chapter 11. Summary Judgment.

11-002. Memo of Law in Opposition to Motion for

Summary Judgment – Wrongful Termination –

C.G.S. 31-51q

• Library of Connecticut Personal Injury Forms, 2nd ed.,

Joshua Koskoff, editor, Connecticut Law Tribune, 2014.

Chapter 6. Objection to Motions/Requests

6-012. Objection to Motion for Summary

Judgment—Statute of Limitations

6-013. Objection to Defendants Motion for

Summary Judgment

• Library of Connecticut Personal Injury Forms, 3d ed., Carey

B. Reilly, Connecticut Law Tribune, 2022.

Chapter 7. Pending Litigation

7-032. Summary Judgment, Objection to

CASE LAW:

• Squeo v. Norwalk Hosp. Ass'n, 316 Conn 558, 594, 113

A.3d 932 (2015). “As a general rule, then, ‘[w]hen a motion

for summary judgment is filed and supported by affidavits

Motion for Summary Judgment - 24

and other documents, an adverse party, by affidavit or as

otherwise provided by ... [the rules of practice], must set

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial, and if he does not so respond, summary judgment

shall be entered against him.’ (Footnote omitted.) Farrell v.

Farrell, 182 Conn. 34, 38, 438 A.2d 415 (1980). ‘Requiring

the nonmovant to produce such evidence does not shift the

burden of proof. Rather, it ensures that the nonmovant has

not raised a specious issue for the sole purpose of forcing

the case to trial.’ Great Country Bank v. Pastore, supra, 241

Conn. at 436.”

• RAB Performance Recoveries, LLC v. James, 151 Conn. App.

360, 366, 94 A.3d 1223 (2014). “Although the defendant

filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment in

which he argued that there was a genuine issue of material

fact as to the plaintiff's ownership of the debt, our rules of

procedure make clear that an unsworn and conclusory

assertion is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary

judgment. See Practice Book § 17–45; 2830 Whitney

Avenue Corp. v. Heritage Canal Development Associates,

Inc., 33 Conn. App. 563, 567, 636 A.2d 1377 (1994)

(‘existence of [a] genuine issue of material fact must be

demonstrated by counteraffidavits and concrete

evidence’).”

• Rockwell v. Quintner, 96 Conn. App. 221, 229, 899 A.2d

738 (2006). “An important exception exists, however, to

the general rule that a party opposing summary judgment

must provide evidentiary support for its opposition, and

that exception has been articulated in our jurisprudence

with less frequency than has the general rule. ‘On a motion

by [the] defendant for summary judgment the burden is on

[the] defendant to negate each claim as framed by the

complaint....’ 49 C.J.S. 365, Judgments § 261(b) (1997). It

necessarily follows that it is only ‘[o]nce [the] defendant's

burden in establishing his entitlement to summary

judgment is met [that] the burden shifts to [the] plaintiff to

show that a genuine issue of fact exists justifying a trial.’

49 C.J.S. 366, supra, § 261(b). Accordingly, ‘[w]hen

documents submitted in support of a motion for summary

judgment fail to establish that there is no genuine issue of

material fact, the nonmoving party has no obligation to

submit documents establishing the existence of such an

issue.’ Allstate Ins. Co. v. Barron, supra, 269 Conn. at 405,

848 A.2d 1165.”

• Inwood Condo. Ass'n v. Winer, 49 Conn. App. 694, 697,

716 A. 2d 139 (1998). “To oppose a motion for summary

judgment successfully, the nonmovant must recite specific

facts in accordance with Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § § 17–

45 and 17–46, formerly §§ 380 and 381, which contradict

those stated in the movant's affidavits and documents and

Once you have

identified useful

cases, it is important

to update the cases

before you rely on

them. Updating case

law means checking

to see if the cases

are still good law.

You can contact your

local law librarian to

learn about the tools

available to you to

update cases.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 25

show that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not

so respond, summary judgment shall be entered against

him. Farrell v. Farrell, 182 Conn. 34, 38, 438 A.2d 415

(1980); Rusco Industries, Inc. v. Hartford Housing

Authority, 168 Conn. 1, 5, 357 A.2d 484 (1975).”

WEST KEY

NUMBERS:

• 368H Summary Judgment

I. In General, k1-k10

II. Questions Considered on Summary Judgment, k11-k40

III. Grounds for Summary Judgment; Factors Considered,

k41-k70

IV. Ascertaining Whether Fact Issue Exists, k71-k100

V. Particular Cases and Contexts, k101-k270

VI. Proceedings, k271-k365

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

• 73 Am. Jur. 2d Summary Judgment, Thomson West, 2023

(Also available on Westlaw).

I. In general

II. Actions, Matters, and Proceedings in Which

Authorized or Available

III. Application or Motion; Opposition; Effect of Failure

to Properly Support or Address Fact

A. Application or Motion

B. Opposition

2. Evidence in Support of Opposition

C. Establishing that Particular Fact is or Cannot be

Genuinely Disputed

IV. Determination; Governing Rules, Principles, and

Considerations

V. Scope of Relief; Order and Judgment

• 49 C.J.S. Judgments, Thomson West, 2021 (Also available

on Westlaw).

X. Judgment on Motion or Summary Proceedings

A. In general

B. Cases in Which Allowed

C. Proceedings on Motion for Summary Judgment

TEXTS &

TREATISES:

• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Civil Pretrial Practice

Margaret P. Mason, editor, 2022 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 16. Summary Judgment

Part I: Statute and Rule Locator

Part II: Practical Guidance

§ 16.07. Filing and Serving Opposition to Motion

for Summary Judgment

§ 16.08. Filing and Serving Reply in Support of

Motion for Summary Judgment

§ 16.10. Submitting Affidavit in Support of

Motion, Opposition, or Reply

• 18 Connecticut Practice Series, Summary Judgment &

Related Termination Motions, by Erin Carlson, 2023 ed.,

Thomson West (Also available on Westlaw).

Encyclopedias and

ALRs are available in

print at some law

library locations and

accessible online at

all law library

locations.

Online databases are

available for

in-library use.

Remote access is not

available.

You can contact us

or visit our catalog

to determine which

of our law libraries

own the other

treatises cited or to

search for more

treatises.

References to online

databases refer to

in-library use of

these databases.

Remote access is not

available.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 26

Chapter 3. Summary Judgment or Summary

Adjudication

V. Key Opposition Citations

• 2 Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice, by Ralph Dupont,

2022-2023 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 17. Judgments in General

G. Summary Judgments

• Civil Litigation in Connecticut: Anatomy of a Lawsuit, by

Kimberly A. Peterson, Prentice-Hall, 1998.

Chapter 27. Motion for Summary Judgment

• Pleadings and Pretrial Practice: A Deskbook for Connecticut

Litigator, by Jeanine M. Dumont, Connecticut Law Tribune,

1998 ed.

Chapter XI. Motion for Summary Judgment

5. Opposition to the Motion

• Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure, by Renee

Bevacqua Bollier, Atlantic Law Book Company, 1997, with

2014 supplement.

Chapter 9. Disposition Short of Trial.

100. Summary Judgment.

LAW REVIEWS:

• Corey M. Dennis, Roadmap to Connecticut Procedure,

Connecticut Bar Journal, Volume 83, Issue 4, 271 (2009).

Public access to law

review databases is

available on-site at

each of our law

libraries.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 27

Section 3: Affidavits and Documentary Proof

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to affidavits and documentary

proof in support of motions for summary judgment.

DEFINITIONS:

• Standard for affidavits: “Supporting and opposing

affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set

forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and

shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to

testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified

copies of all papers or part thereof referred to in an

affidavit shall be attached thereto.” Conn. Practice Book §

17-46 (2023).

• Affidavit: “…defined as any voluntary ex parte statement

reduced to writing, and sworn to or affirmed before some

person legally authorized to administer an oath or

affirmation.” Wiretek, Inc. v. J.M. Taraerin Enterprises, LLC,

Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, No. HHDX04-

CV06-6002110-S (May 25, 2010) (2010 WL 2593271)

(2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1243).

• “It is frequently stated in Connecticut's case law that,

pursuant to Practice Book §§ 17–45 and 17–46, a party

opposing a summary judgment motion ‘must provide an

evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a

genuine issue of material fact.’ Harvey v. Boehringer

Ingelheim Corp., 52 Conn. App. 1, 4, 724 A.2d 1143

(1999).” Rockwell v. Quintner, 96 Conn. App. 221, 228-

229, 899 A.2d 738 (2006).

• Personal knowledge: “‘is variously described as

knowledge acquired firsthand or from observation…’” Amos

Fin., LLC v. Ctr. for Advanced Pediatrics, P.C., Superior

Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, No. CV11-

6011064-S (March 11, 2013) (2013 WL 1364714) (2013

Conn. Super. LEXIS 560).

STATUTES:

• Conn. Gen. Stat. (2023)

Chapter 901 - Damages, Costs and Fees

§ 52-245. False statement concerning defense. Costs.

COURT RULES:

• Connecticut Practice Book (2023)

§ 17-44. Summary Judgments; Scope of Remedy.

§ 17-45. --Proceedings upon Motion for Summary

Judgment; Request for Extension of Time to

Respond.

§ 17-46. --Form of Affidavits.

Amendments to the

Practice Book (Court

Rules) are published

in the Connecticut

Law Journal and

posted online.

You can visit your

local law library or

search the most

recent statutes and

public acts on the

Connecticut General

Assembly website.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 28

§ 17-47. --When Appropriate Documents Are

Unavailable

§ 17-48. --Affidavits Made in Bad Faith

§ 17-49. --Judgment

CODE OF

EVIDENCE:

• Official 2000 Connecticut Code of Evidence (2023 ed.)

§ 9-1. Requirement of Authentication

FORMS:

• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Civil Pretrial Practice

Margaret P. Mason, editor, 2022 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 16. Summary Judgment

§ 16.23. Form: Affidavit in Support of Motion for

Summary Judgment

§ 16.25. Form: Affidavit in Support of Opposition to

Motion for summary Judgment

• 18 Connecticut Practice Series, Summary Judgment &

Related Termination Motions, by Erin Carlson, 2023 ed.,

Thomson West (Also available on Westlaw).

Chapter 3. Summary Judgment or Summary

Adjudication

VI. Sample Forms

3:139. Sample supporting and opposition

briefs — Motion for summary

judgment by defendant—Request for judicial

notice in support of motion for summary judgment

3:140. Sample supporting and opposition

briefs — Motion for summary judgment by

defendant—Affidavit in support of motion for

summary judgment

CASE LAW:

• Alvarez v. City of Middletown, 192 Conn. App. 606, 620,

218 A.3d 124 (2019). “As this court has observed, ‘to

defeat summary judgment . . . the plaintiff’s admissible

evidence must show circumstances that would be sufficient

to permit a rational finder of fact to infer that the

defendant’s employment decision was more likely than not

based in whole or in part on discrimination . . . .’ (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) Taing v. CAMRAC, LLC, supra,

189 Conn. App. 28. Because the plaintiff has not presented

such evidence, we conclude that the court properly

rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant.”

• Magee Ave., LLC v. Lima Ceramic Tile, LLC, 183 Conn. App.

575, 584, 193 A.3d 700 (2018). “If mere assertions of fact

are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact,

then they are insufficient to establish the lack of an

existence of material fact in the face of opposing evidence.

In essence, the plaintiff here was required to respond to

mere factual assertions with its own supporting affidavits

Once you have

identified useful

cases, it is important

to update the cases

before you rely on

them. Updating case

law means checking

to see if the cases

are still good law.

You can contact your

local law librarian to

learn about the tools

available to you to

update cases.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 29

and documentation before the defendant presented his

evidence in support of those assertions in the first place.

Considering that, under the rules of practice at the time of

the hearing, an adverse party was required to file its

evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment

at least five days before the hearing on the motion, we fail

to see how the defendant here should have been permitted

to file his initial affidavit in support of the motion one day

before the hearing. The defendant's affidavit therefore was

untimely and should not have been considered by the trial

court. Therefore, because the trial court should not have

considered the defendant's affidavit, the court improperly

rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant.”

• Stuart v. Freiberg, 316 Conn. 809, 822, 116 A.3d 1195,

1204 (2015). “Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that,

following a determination that there were genuine disputes

over material facts bearing on other essential elements of

the counts of fraud and negligent misrepresentation⎯for

example, whether the defendant's financial statements

were false⎯’the trial court should have simply ceased its

analysis and denied summary judgment . . . .’ Thus, the

plaintiffs argue that it was improper for the trial court to

consider, in succession, whether any genuine issue of

material fact existed as to the essential element of reliance.

We disagree.”

“If a defendant's well supported motion for summary

judgment shows that there is no genuine factual dispute as

to multiple essential elements of a plaintiff's cause of

action, such that none of them reasonably could be

resolved in the plaintiff's favor at trial, the viability of that

plaintiff's case is not improved if he only responds with

sufficient counterevidence to call some of those essential

elements back into question. Put differently, by raising a

genuine issue of fact as to only some of the essential

elements under attack, the plaintiff has not altered the

potential outcome of his case. See Santopietro v. New

Haven, supra, 239 Conn. 225. It logically follows that, in

evaluating a defendant's motion for summary judgment, a

trial court's task does not necessarily end upon its finding

that a genuine factual dispute exists as to one or some

essential elements of a plaintiff's cause of action. If a

defendant has substantively addressed additional essential

elements in support of his motion, so too should the trial

court in determining whether summary judgment is

appropriate.” (p. 823)

• Mott v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 139 Conn. App. 618, 632,

57 A.3d 391, 397 (2012). “‘A motion for summary

judgment is properly granted if it raises at least one legally

sufficient defense that would bar the plaintiff's claim and

involves no triable issue of fact.’ (Internal quotation marks

Once you have

identified useful

cases, it is important

to update the cases

before you rely on

them. Updating case

law means checking

to see if the cases

are still good law.

You can contact your

local law librarian to

learn about the tools

available to you to

update cases.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 30

omitted.) Lunn v. Cummings & Lockwood, 56 Conn. App.

363, 370, 743 A.2d 653 (2000). The submissions provided

by the defendant in support of its motion for summary

judgment cannot be viewed properly as removing the issue

of notice as a triable issue of fact in the present case. The

court's statement to the contrary is clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, because the defendant failed to meet its

evidentiary burden, the plaintiff was entitled to a denial of

the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and it was

not legally or logically correct for the court to have granted

the motion for summary judgment on the basis that the

plaintiff had failed to file an opposing affidavit or other

supporting documents with its opposition to summary

judgment.”

• Taylor v. Barberino, 136 Conn. App. 283, 289, 44 A.3d 875,

878 (2012). “As this court has observed, ‘[o]nly evidence

that would be admissible at trial may be used to support or

oppose a motion for summary judgment’ United Services

Automobile Assn. v. Marburg, 46 Conn.App. 99, 110, 698

A.2d 914 (1997). The affidavits of Draskinis and Sgambati,

in particular, plainly do not contain statements based on

personal knowledge, as required under Practice Book § 17–

46. Indeed, with respect to Draskinis, the court found, and

we agree, that ‘much of what is sworn to ... does [not]

constitute facts that would be admissible at trial. Rather,

much of the document consists of [statements] about

matters which he has only learned of through reviews of

deposition testimony, and offering statements that sound

more like legal arguments than statements of fact.’”

• Baldwin v. Curtis, 105 Conn. App. 844, 852, 939 A.2d

1249, 1254 (2008). “As the defendant's evidence failed to

negate a genuine issue of material fact, the plaintiff was not

obligated to submit documents establishing the existence of

such an issue. See Rockwell v. Quintner, supra, 96

Conn.App. at 228, 899 A.2d 738 (defendant's evidence

failed to ‘[exclude] any real doubt as to the existence of

any genuine issue of material fact’). Having failed to negate

a genuine issue of material fact, the defendant did not meet

her burden of establishing that, as a matter of law,

summary judgment should have been rendered in her

favor.”

• City of New Haven v. Pantani, 89 Conn. App. 675, 679, 874

A. 2d 849 (2005). “Therefore, before a document may be

considered by the court in support of a motion for summary

judgment, ‘there must be a preliminary showing of [the

document's] genuineness, i.e., that the proffered item of

evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. The

requirement of authentication applies to all types of

evidence, including writings ....’ Conn.Code Evid. § 9-1(a),

commentary. Documents in support of or in opposition to a

Motion for Summary Judgment - 31

motion for summary judgment may be authenticated in a

variety of ways, including, but not limited to, a certified

copy of a document or the addition of an affidavit by a

person with personal knowledge that the offered evidence is

a true and accurate representation of what its proponent

claims it to be. In this case, the plaintiff submitted

numerous exhibits in support of its motion for summary

judgment. The plaintiff failed, however, either to attach an

affidavit attesting to the truth and accuracy of the various

submissions or to provide certified copies of any of the

documents.”

• Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, et al., 81 Conn. App.

798, 803, 842 A.2d 1134 (2004). “The defendants claim

that the McMahon affidavit, submitted in opposition to the

plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, raised genuine

issues of material fact. ‘[A]ffidavits filed in connection with

a motion for summary judgment must be made on personal

knowledge, must set forth facts which would be admissible

in evidence, and must show that the affiant is competent to

testify to all matters stated in the affidavit. . . . Mere

statements of legal conclusions or that an issue of fact does

exist are not sufficient to raise the issue.’ (Citations

omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Oil Co.

v. Urban Redevelopment Commission, 158 Conn. 364, 377,

260 A.2d 596 (1969). Our review of the record persuades

us that the McMahon affidavit satisfies that standard.”

• Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Winters, 13 Conn.

App. 712, 721, 539 A.2d 595 (1988). “Pleadings per se do

not constitute documentary proof under § 380. Allegations

of pleadings not admitted by a party are not proof of their

contents. They merely set forth the cause of action and the

issues of fact and law raised in the pleadings. The

framework of the case is built by the pleadings. Unadmitted

allegations of pleadings do not constitute documentary

proof of the existence of a genuine issue as to any material

fact on a motion for summary judgment. The quantum of

evidentiary proof admissible at trial relevant to these

allegations, or any later amendment of them, is not

documentary proof under § 380 probative of, or relevant to,

the grant or denial of summary judgment. The court's

consideration of a motion for summary judgment is limited

to the evaluation as a matter of law of the documentary

proof submitted under § 380. Additionally, in passing upon

a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view

the documentary proof in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant. Rawling v. New Haven, supra; Strada v.

Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., 193 Conn. 313, 317, 477

A.2d 1005 (1984); Town Bank & Trust Co. v. Benson,

supra, 176 Conn. at 309, 407 A.2d 971; United Oil Co. v.

Urban Redevelopment Commission, supra, 158 Conn. at

380, 260 A.2d 596.”

Motion for Summary Judgment - 32

• Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc., 201

Conn. 1, 7, 513 A.2d 1218 (1986). “We turn now to the

defendant's claim that the Brookfield tax collector's affidavit

supporting the summary judgment motion included, in

violation of Practice Book § 381..., evidence that would

have been inadmissable at trial and, therefore, should not

have been considered by the trial court in deciding the

motion. This claim is without merit.

The plaintiff attached to its motion for summary judgment,

inter alia, the affidavit of Theresa York, the Brookfield tax

collector, dated December 11, 1984. York's affidavit, after

setting out that she was ‘duly sworn [and] depose[d],’

recites that she was the tax collector of Brookfield and "as

such, [was] familiar with the subject matter of [this] suit....

York's affidavit comports with the requisites of an affidavit;

it is a written statement taken under oath before an

authorized officer. 2A C.J.S., Affidavits § 2; 3 Am. Jur. 2d,

Affidavits § 1; see generally State v. Wolfe, 156 Conn. 199,

205, 239 A.2d 509 (1968). Generally speaking, affidavits

are used for, and should contain, a presentation of facts by

a person having knowledge of those facts, and the facts

recited must be those requisite to establish the principal

facts sought to be maintained. See 2A C.J.S., Affidavits §

43. Specifically, as to summary judgment, ‘[s]upporting

and opposing affidavits ‘shall be made on personal

knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible

in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is

competent to testify to the matters stated therein.’ Practice

Book § 381[.]...

The operative facts stated by York in her affidavit, which

encompasses the exhibits attached, are matters within her

personal knowledge as the tax collector of Brookfield. Her

affidavit specifically recites that, as the tax collector, she is

‘familiar with the subject matter of [this] suit.’ It is

recognized that ‘[a]n affidavit may be used to introduce

documentary or other written proof, and in that event such

written materials should be attached to the affidavit or

served with it’ as they were in this case. 6 Moore, Federal

Practice (2d Ed.) ¶ 56.11[1.-2], p. 56-200; see 3 Am. Jur.

2d, Affidavits § 20. If, as one court has said, ‘[a]n affidavit

should set forth the factual picture by a person who knows

the facts’; People v. Mirasola, 35 Misc. 2d 886, 887, 231

N.Y.S.2d 645 (1962); the York affidavit does so.”

WEST KEY

NUMBERS:

• 368H Summary Judgment

I. In General, k1-k10

II. Questions Considered on Summary Judgment, k11-k40

III. Grounds for Summary Judgment; Factors Considered,

k41-k70

IV. Ascertaining Whether Fact Issue Exists, k71-k100

Motion for Summary Judgment - 33

V. Particular Cases and Contexts, k101-k270

VI. Proceedings, k271-k365

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

• 73 Am. Jur. 2d Summary Judgment, Thomson West, 2023

(Also available on Westlaw).

I. In general

II. Actions, Matters, and Proceedings in Which

Authorized or Available

III. Application or Motion; Opposition; Effect of Failure

to Properly Support or Address Fact

A. Application or Motion

3. Contents of and Support for Motion

B. Opposition

2. Evidence in Support of Opposition

C. Establishing that Particular Fact is or Cannot be

Genuinely Disputed

IV. Determination; Governing Rules, Principles, and

Considerations

V. Scope of Relief; Order and Judgment

• 49 C.J.S. Judgments, Thomson West, 2021 (Also available

on Westlaw).

X. Judgment on Motion or Summary Proceedings

A. In general

B. Cases in Which Allowed

C. Proceedings on Motion for Summary Judgment

TEXTS &

TREATISES:

• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Civil Pretrial

Practice, Margaret P. Mason, editor, 2022 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 16. Summary Judgment

Part I: Statute and Rule Locator

Part II: Practical Guidance

§ 16.10. Submitting Affidavit in Support of Motion,

Opposition, or Reply

• 18 Connecticut Practice Series, Summary Judgment &

Related Termination Motions, by Erin Carlson, 2023 ed.,

Thomson West (Also available on Westlaw).

Chapter 3. Summary Judgment or Summary

Adjudication

• 2 Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice, by Ralph Dupont,

2022-2023 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 17. Judgments

G. Summary Judgments

§ 17-45. Proceedings Upon Motion for Summary

Judgment; Request for Extension of Time to

Respond

§ 17-45.3 Supporting Documents; Unsworn

Statements and Reports Prohibited.

§ 17-46. Form of Affidavits [On Motion for

Summary Judgment]

Each of our law

libraries own the

Connecticut treatises

cited. You can

our catalog to

determine which of

our law libraries own

the other treatises

cited or to search for

more treatises.

References to online

databases refer to

in-library use of

these databases.

Remote access is not

available.

Encyclopedias and

ALRs are available in

print at some law

library locations and

accessible online at

all law library

locations.

Online databases are

available for

in-library use.

Remote access is not

available.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 34

§ 17-46.1 Affidavit, Facts Alleged Must be

Admissible and Based on Affiant’s Personal

Knowledge.

§ 17-46.2 Affidavit, Failure to File.

§ 17-47. When Appropriate Documents are

Unavailable

§ 17-47.1 Summary Judgment Motion,

Continuance or Denial Until Opponent’s Discovery

Completed

§ 17-48. Affidavits Made in Bad Faith

§ 17-48.1 Contempt; Discipline, Bad Faith

Affidavit

• Civil Litigation in Connecticut: Anatomy of a Lawsuit, by

Kimberly A. Peterson, Prentice Hall, 1998.

Chapter 27. Motion for Summary Judgment

• Pleadings and Pretrial Practice: A Deskbook for Connecticut

Litigators, by Jeanine M. Dumont, Connecticut Law

Tribune, 1998 ed.

Chapter XI. Motion for Summary Judgment

3. The Mechanics of a Motion for Summary

Judgment

• Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure, by Renee

Bevacqua Bollier, Atlantic Law Book Company, 1997, with

2014 supplement.

Chapter 9. Disposition Short of Trial

§ 100. Summary Judgment

• Connecticut Trial Evidence Notebook, Second Edition, Dale

P. Faulkner, et. al., LexisNexis, 2022.

Affidavits

LAW REVIEWS:

• James A. Fulton, Succeeding by Summary Judgment: Is It

Time to Recognize the Sham Affidavit Rule in the State

Courts in Connecticut?, Connecticut Lawyer, Volume 26,

Issue 2, 23 (2015)

• Corey M. Dennis, Roadmap to Connecticut Procedure,

Connecticut Bar Journal, Volume 83, Issue 4, 271 (2009).

Public access to law

review databases is

available on-site at

each of our law

libraries.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 35

Section 4: Partial Summary Judgment

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to partial (interlocutory)

summary judgment as to liability only.

DEFINITIONS:

• Partial Summary Judgment: “A summary judgment,

interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of

liability alone, although there is a genuine issue as to

damages. In such case the judicial authority shall order an

immediate hearing before a judge trial referee, before the

court, or before a jury, whichever may be proper, to

determine the amount of the damages. If the determination

is by a jury, the usual procedure for setting aside the

verdict shall be applicable. Upon the conclusion of these

proceedings, the judicial authority shall forthwith render the

appropriate summary judgment.” Conn. Practice Book § 17-

50 (2023).

• Judgment for Part of Claim: “If it appears that the

defense applies to only part of the claim, or that any part is

admitted, the moving party may have final judgment

forthwith for so much of the claim as the defense does not

apply to, or as is admitted, on such terms as may be just;

and the action may be severed and proceeded with as

respects the remainder of the claim.” Conn. Practice Book §

17-51 (2023).

COURT RULES:

• Connecticut Practice Book (2023)

§ 17-44. Summary Judgments; Scope of Remedy.

§ 17-50. --Triable Issue as to Damages Only

§ 17-51. --Judgment for Part of Claim

§ 61-4. Appeal of Judgment that Disposes of at Least

One Cause of Action while Not Disposing of Either

(1) An Entire Complaint, Counterclaim or Cross

Complaint, or (2) All the Causes of Action in a

Pleading Brought by or against a Party

FORMS:

• 2 Connecticut Practice Series, Connecticut Civil Practice

Forms, 4th ed., by Joel M. Kaye et al., Thomson West,

2004, with 2022 supplement (Also available on Westlaw).

107.14. Interlocutory Summary Judgment

• 18 Connecticut Practice Series, Summary Judgment &

Related Termination Motions, by Erin Carlson, 2023 ed.,

Thomson West (Also available on Westlaw).

Chapter 3. Summary Judgment or Summary

Adjudication

§ 3:137. Motion for summary judgment by

defendant — Memorandum of points and

authorities in support of motion for partial

summary judgment — Negligent and intentional

Amendments to the

Practice Book (Court

Rules) are published

in the Connecticut

Law Journal and

posted online.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 36

infliction of emotional distress

§ 3:138. Motion for summary judgment by

defendant — Memorandum of points and

authorities in support of motion for partial

summary judgment — Provision — No basis for

tolling statute of limitations as to CUTPA claim.

§ 3:142. Motion for summary judgment —

Plaintiff's opposition — Memorandum of points and

authorities in opposition to motion for partial

summary judgment — Negligent and intentional

infliction of emotional distress

• Civil Litigation in Connecticut: Anatomy of a Lawsuit, by

Kimberly A. Peterson, Prentice Hall, 1998.

Chapter 27. Motion for Summary Judgment

Example 1, Motion for Summary Judgment

Interlocutory in Character, with Respect to

Liability, p.255.

CASE LAW:

• Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 194 Conn. App. 335, 337-338, 221

A.3d 95 (2019). “On August 10, 2018, the defendant filed

another appeal from the partial summary judgment

rendered by the trial court on April 23, 2018. . . In

response, the plaintiff maintains that the defendant has not

appealed from a final judgment, thereby depriving this

court of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree.

‘. . . It is undisputed that the partial summary judgment

that the court entered on April 23, 2018, did not dispose of

all causes of action against the defendant, as the second

count seeking an accounting pursuant to § 52-404 (b)

remained pending. In addition, the defendant has not

requested a written determination from the trial court

regarding the significance of the issues resolved by the

partial summary judgment entered against him.

As a result, the defendant could appeal from the partial

summary judgment ‘only if the remaining causes of action

or claims for relief [were] withdrawn or unconditionally

abandoned before the appeal [was] taken.’ Meribear

Productions, Inc. v. Frank, 328 Conn. 709, 717, 183 A.3d

1164 (2018).”

• Wahba v. J & J Blasting Corp., Superior Court, Judicial

District of Stamford-Norwalk, No. CV14-6020764-S (Nov. 4,

2014) (59 Conn. L. Rptr. 267) (2014 WL 6996849) (2014

Conn. Super. LEXIS 2754). “‘There is no appellate authority

and a split among Superior Court authority as to whether it

is proper to excise only certain allegations of a count

through summary judgment when such judgment would not

dispose of a discrete cause of action.’ Trungadi v. Mauer,

Once you have

identified useful

cases, it is important

to update the cases

before you rely on

them. Updating case

law means checking

to see if the cases

are still good law.

You can contact your

local law librarian to

learn about the tools

available to you to

update cases.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 37

Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV–

07–5008732–S (November 21, 2011, Bellis, J.) [53 Conn.

L. Rptr. 9]. On one hand, some courts have granted partial

summary judgment as to certain specifications of a cause of

action contained within a single count, if it appears illogical

to retain those specifications when they cannot ultimately

succeed. Mazurek v. Great American Insurance Company,

Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Complex

Litigation Docket, Docket No. X02–CV–01–0177433–S

(December 16, 2004, Schuman, J.) (38 Conn. L. Rptr. 402)

(denying re-argument of a grant of summary judgment on

fifty-one of the fifty-four specifications in a negligence

count), aff'd in part and appeal dismissed in part, 284

Conn. 16 (2007). Other courts have stated, ‘[s]ummary

judgment is unavailable as to particular allegations in a

count when such an adjudication does not dispose of an

entire cause of action...’ Shelton Yacht & Cabana Club, Inc.

v. Voccola, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia–

Milford, Docket No. CV–01–0075380–S (February 2, 2007,

Stevens, J.).

• GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 144 Conn. App. 165, 176, 73

A.3d 742, 751 (2013). “Thus, a court may properly grant

summary judgment as to liability in a foreclosure action if

the complaint and supporting affidavits establish an

undisputed prima facie case and the defendant fails to

assert any legally sufficient special defense. See LaSalle

National Bank v. Shook, 67 Conn. App. 93, 96–97, 787

A.2d 32 (2001); Union Trust Co. v. Jackson, 42 Conn. App.

413, 417, 679 A.2d 421 (1996).”

• Pfizer, Inc. v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., Superior Court,

Judicial District of Hartford, No. CV04-4034705S, (May 19,

2008) (45 Conn. L. Rptr. 577) (2008 WL 2314196) (2008

Conn. Super. LEXIS 1239). “While there still appears to be

no definitive appellate authority and there continues to be a

split in the Superior Court, ‘the majority of the cases do not

allow a party to eliminate some, but not all, of the

allegations of a single count through a motion for summary

judgment.’ (Footnote omitted.) Snodgrass v. Mulhearn,

Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain at New

Britain, Docket No. HHB CV 03 0523029 (May 18, 2006,

Shaban, J.) (noting absence of appellate authority and

collecting cases). A recent explanation stated, ‘the majority

rule ... is that Connecticut procedure does not allow entry

of summary judgment on one part or allegation of a cause

of action when the ruling will not dispose of an entire claim,

and therefore, will not allow entry of judgment on that

claim. See generally Practice Book § 17–51.’ (Footnote

omitted.) Bridgeport Harbor Place I, LLC v. Ganim, Superior

Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Complex Litigation

Docket at Waterbury, Docket No. X06 CV 04 0184523

(October 5, 2007, Stevens, J.).”

Once you have

identified useful

cases, it is important

to update the cases

before you rely on

them. Updating case

law means checking

to see if the cases

are still good law.

You can contact your

local law librarian to

learn about the tools

available to you to

update cases.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 38

• Psaki v. Karlton, 97 Conn. App. 64, 70, 903 A.2d 224

(2006). “First, the judgment of the court did not dispose of

all causes of action brought by the parties. In fact, the

judgment did not even dispose of the breach of contract

claim. Second, neither the trial court nor this court made

any written determination pursuant to Practice Book § 61-

4(a) regarding the significance of the issues presented in

this case. Moreover, Practice Book § 61-4(a) is not

applicable because it ‘applies to a trial court judgment that

disposes of at least one cause of action....’ Here, it is

without question that the court's judgment does not

dispose of at least one cause of action. Accordingly, we

conclude that this appeal does not fall within either rule

permitting an appeal from a judgment on less than all

counts of the complaint.”

WEST KEY

NUMBERS:

• 368H Summary Judgment

I. In General, k1-k10

II. Questions Considered on Summary Judgment, k11-k40

III. Grounds for Summary Judgment; Factors Considered,

k41-k70

IV. Ascertaining Whether Fact Issue Exists, k71-k100

V. Particular Cases and Contexts, k101-k270

VI. Proceedings, k271-k365

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

• 73 Am. Jur. 2d Summary Judgment, Thomson West, 2023

(Also available on Westlaw).

I. In general

II. Actions, Matters, and Proceedings in Which

Authorized or Available

III. Application or Motion; Opposition; Effect of Failure

to Properly Support or Address Fact

IV. Determination; Governing Rules, Principles, and

Considerations

V. Scope of Relief; Order and Judgment

B. Complete or Partial Summary Judgment;

Limitation of Issues

• 49 C.J.S. Judgments, Thomson West, 2021 (Also available

on Westlaw).

X. Judgment on Motion or Summary Proceedings

A. In general

B. Cases in Which Allowed

C. Proceedings on Motion for Summary Judgment

TEXTS &

TREATISES:

• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Civil Pretrial

Practice, Margaret P. Mason, editor, 2022 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 16. Summary Judgment

Part I: Statute and Rule Locator

Part II: Practical Guidance

§ 16.04. Partial Summary Judgment is Permitted

Encyclopedias and

ALRs are available in

print at some law

library locations and

accessible online at

all law library

locations.

Online databases are

available for

in-library use.

Remote access is not

available.

Motion for Summary Judgment - 39

• 18 Connecticut Practice Series, Summary Judgment &

Related Termination Motions, by Erin Carlson, 2023 ed.,

Thomson West, (Also available on Westlaw).

Chapter 3. Summary Judgment or Summary

Adjudication

§ 3:19 Partial summary judgment⎯Authority

• 2 Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice, by Ralph Dupont,

2022-2023 ed., LexisNexis.

Chapter 17. Judgments

G. Summary Judgments

§ 17-50. Triable Issue as to Damages Only [On

Motion for Summary Judgment]

§ 17-51. Judgment for Part of Claim [Partial

Summary Judgment]

• Civil Litigation in Connecticut: Anatomy of a Lawsuit by

Kimberly A. Peterson, Prentice Hall, 1998.

Chapter 27. Motion for Summary Judgment

• Pleadings and Pretrial Practice: A Deskbook for Connecticut

Litigators, by Jeanine M. Dumont, Connecticut Law Tribune,

1998 ed.

Chapter XI. Motion for Summary Judgment

• Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure, by Renee

Bevacqua Bollier, Atlantic Law Book Company, 1997, with

2014 supplement.

Chapter 9. Disposition Short of Trial.

§ 100. Summary Judgment.

LAW REVIEWS:

• Corey M. Dennis, Roadmap to Connecticut Procedure,

Connecticut Bar Journal, Volume 83, Issue 4, 271 (2009).

Public access to law

review databases is

available on-site at

each of our law

libraries.

Each of our law

libraries own the

Connecticut treatises

cited. You can

our catalog to

determine which of

our law libraries own

the other treatises

cited or to search for

more treatises.

References to online

databases refer to

in-library use of

these databases.

Remote access is not

available.