ROBERT M. BLOCH
ANDREW ULLMAN., ET AL.
April 13, 2016
from Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Wilson,
M. Bloch, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
H. Perlmutter, self-represented, with whom, on the brief, was
Andrew M. Ullman, self-represented, the appellees
Lavine, Alvord and Sheldon, Js.
self-represented plaintiff, Robert M. Bloch, appeals from the
judgment of the trial court dismissing his action against the
defendant attorneys, Andrew Ullman and Irving Perlmutter, on
the ground that he failed to file a recognizance bond as
required by General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) §
52-185. The issue on appeal, as succinctly stated
by the defendants,  is whether a judgment of dismissal
properly entered against the plaintiff on December 9, 2014,
when he failed to comply with the November 24, 2014 order of
the court, Wilson, J., that he file a recognizance
bond for costs in accordance with Practice Book §
and General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 52-185 within two
weeks.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
record discloses the following facts. On August 14, 2014, the
plaintiff filed an application, asking the court to waive the
entry fee and service of process fee, which was granted
by the court, A. Robinson, J., on August 18, 2014.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff commenced the present
action against the defendants.
about August 28, 2014, Perlmutter sent the plaintiff a letter
via first class and certified mail, in which he stated:
‘‘This will acknowledge receipt of your summons
and complaint dated August 14, 2014.
to Section 8-3 (a) of the Connecticut Superior Court Rules
and Section 52-185 of the Connecticut General Statutes, you
are required to furnish a bond for prosecution of your
action. You have failed to do so and the summons contains no
accordance with Practice Book § 8-7 you are hereby
requested to furnish a recognizance signed by some
financially responsible person as surety that you shall
prosecute your action to effect and answer all damages if you
do not make your plea good.
are required to either refuse this request or to file a
satisfactory bond within a reasonable time after receipt of
this request in accordance with the provisions of Practice
Book Section 8-7.’’ (Footnotes added.)
plaintiff returned the summons and complaint to court on
September 8, 2014. On October 7, 2014, pursuant to Practice
Book § 10-30, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiff’s action with an accompanying memorandum
of law. In their memorandum of law, the defendants stated
that the plaintiff’s action was returnable to court on
October 7, 2014, and that the summons was signed by an
assistant clerk of the Superior Court, permitting issuance of
process. The memorandum continued: ‘‘On the
summons form, in the space provided for statutory
recognizance required by Section 52-185 et seq. of the
Connecticut General Statutes, no one was recognized nor was
there provided the necessary security for costs as required
by [§] 52-185 . . . . On August 28, 2014, in accordance
with [Practice Book §] 8-7, the defendants requested
that the plaintiff provide a recognizance for costs signed by
some responsible person as provided by [§] 52-185 . . .
. By reason of the failure of the [plaintiff] to respond to
the request that he furnish security for costs as required by
statute and rule [of practice], the defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss this action in accordance with the
provisions of [Practice Book §] 8-5 (a).’’
defendants acknowledged that Judge Robinson had approved the
plaintiff’s application to waive certain fees, but
noted that the plaintiff had not requested a waiver of
recognizance. The defendants argued that the court has no
authority to waive the provisions of § 52-185, citing
Steinkamp v. Jacque, 36 Conn. Supp. 37, 41, 410 A.2d
489 (1979). Moreover, the defendants argued that the
plaintiff’s cause of action will require substantial
discovery, at least a deposition of the plaintiff, and a
recognizance of $250 might not be sufficient to cover taxable
costs. The defendants, therefore, requested a more
substantial recognizance for costs.
November 20, 2014, the plaintiff filed what the Superior
Court clerk’s office coded as a letter, which stated:
‘‘The summons I filed in [this case] was
deficient in that it did not contain a recognizance bond. I
wish that I had this pointed out and explained to me when I
filed my summons and my complaint at the Court Clerk’s
Office on August 14, 2014. I am representing myself pro se
and have limited Court experience in my background.
now believe I understand enough about the process and
procedure to remedy the situation. As I understand it, from
the Court Clerk, this requirement can be complied with by
paying a $250 fee to the Court ...