Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

IRENE NOVAK v. RICHARD LEVIN ET AL. (SC 17857) (SC 17858)
Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Sullivan, Js. Argued November 30, 2007--officially released May 20, 2008

Judith L. Raines, with whom, on the brief, were James F. Biondo and James B. Rosenblum, for the appellant (named defendant). Charles W. Fleischmann, with whom, on the brief, was Madonna A. Sacco, for the appellant (defendant David McCullough). Brenden P. Leydon, with whom, on the brief, was Patrick J. Filan, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

VERTEFEUILLE, J. These certified appeals arise from the Appellate Court's order granting the motions for reconsideration and reconsideration en banc filed by the plaintiff, Irene Novak, thereby restoring her appeal to its docket. On appeal, the defendants, Richard Levin and David McCullough, claim that the Appellate Court, which previously had dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, lacked jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and reconsideration en banc. We disagree and, accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Appellate Court restoring the plaintiff's appeal to its docket. The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for medical malpractice against the defendants, both of whom are physicians. In her complaint, the plaintiff claimed that Levin performed unnecessary nasal surgery on the plaintiff resulting in permanent vision impairment, and that McCullough failed to diagnose and treat properly her postoperative condition. The matter was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. The trial court then rendered judgment for the defendants in accordance with the verdict. The plaintiff thereafter filed her appeal to the Appellate Court. On the appeal form, the plaintiff indicated that she was appealing from the denial of her motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. The defendants moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming, inter alia, that the plaintiff's appeal was defective because she had appealed from the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict rather than from the final judgment of the trial court. On July 24, 2006, the Appellate Court ordered that the motion to dismiss be granted unless the plaintiff filed a corrected appeal form and other required documents within ten days. The plaintiff failed to comply fully with the Appellate Court's order in a timely manner, and her appeal therefore was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal and to allow for the late filing of her amended appeal. The Appellate Court granted the motion ``provided that the [plaintiff] files a corrected/ amended appeal form with the trial court and the Appellate Court clerk's offices indicating [that] she is appealing from the trial court's decision on the motion to set aside and for a new trial and from the judgment rendered thereafter'' within seven days. The plaintiff again did not comply with the Appellate Court's order. Accordingly, the Appellate Court issued an order dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on September 6, 2006.

On September 28, 2006, the plaintiff filed another motion to set aside the dismissal and to allow for the late filing of an amended/corrected appeal form, which the defendants opposed. The Appellate Court denied the plaintiff's motion. On November 6, 2006, more than sixty days after the appeal had been dismissed, the plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration and reconsideration en banc, which the defendants opposed. On January 17, 2007, the Appellate Court granted the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and for reconsideration en banc conditioned on the filing of a proper corrected/amended appeal form, which the plaintiff filed on February 1, 2007.1 As a result, the plaintiff's appeal was restored to the Appellate Court's docket. We granted the defendants' separate petitions for certification limited to the following issue: ``Did the Appellate Court properly grant the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration filed on November 6, 2006?'' Novak v. Levin, 281 Conn. 925, 926, 918 A.2d 275 (2007). These appeals followed. On appeal, the defendants claim that the Appellate Court improperly granted the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and reconsideration en banc. Specifically, the defendants assert that: (1) the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff's motions because they were filed after the expiration of the period for filing motions to reconsider provided in Practice Book

Download Novak v. Levin.pdf

Connecticut Law