Cusano v. Burgundy Chevrolet, Inc.
Docket: AC 18212
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; November 9, 1999; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
Defendants Burgundy Chevrolet, Inc. and Ismael Velazquez appeal the trial court's decision to grant plaintiff Florence Cusano's motion to open a judgment of nonsuit. They argue that the court lacked authority to do so since the plaintiff did not file the motion within the four-month period required by General Statutes § 52-212a and Practice Book § 17-4(a). The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Key facts include a 1990 car accident that led to a wrongful death action initiated by the plaintiff in 1991 against the defendants. The defendants filed a motion for judgment of nonsuit in 1992 due to the plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery requests. A judgment of nonsuit was entered in October 1992. In January 1998, the plaintiff sought to open this judgment, which the court granted in February, finding that the plaintiff and her counsel were not notified of the earlier order and had adequately complied with discovery requests before the judgment was entered. The court determined there was no basis for the nonsuit judgment. The defendants' appeal primarily challenges the trial court's authority to open the judgment based on the timeliness of the motion. The court noted that while opening a judgment is typically not a final judgment, exceptions exist when questioning the court's power to act, referencing prior case law. The plaintiff contends that the four-month limitation period set forth in General Statutes 52-212a and Practice Book 17-4 (a) is inapplicable due to the entry of nonsuit being a clerical error. The court agrees, affirming that it has the authority to amend its own judgment within four months after issuing it, and can rectify clerical errors at any time, even post-expiration of that period. A clerical error refers to non-judicial mistakes in a judgment that do not reflect the actual decision made by the court. The records indicate that the nonsuit entry against the plaintiff was indeed a clerical error, as it was not authorized by any trial court judge and was entered mistakenly without the court's awareness. The court determined that no judgment of nonsuit could have been entered without the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders, and there was no evidence of such failure in the record. Consequently, the judgment of nonsuit was deemed the result of a clerical error or misunderstanding regarding the record. The court concluded that the four-month limitation does not apply, allowing for the reopening of the judgment of nonsuit. Additionally, the court noted that the issue of whether the plaintiff's counsel had actual notice of the nonsuit judgment was irrelevant, as the clerical nature of the entry allows for correction at any time. Thus, the court upheld its authority to open the judgment, with other judges concurring in the opinion.