CONNECTICUT CENTER FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, INC.
BOLTON WORKS, LLC
March 5, 2019
Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, Housing
Session, where the court, Shah, J.
C. Shulman, Manchester, for the appellant (defendant).
J. Real, with whom was Pat Labbadia III, Clinton, for the
Elgo and Bishop, Js.
Conn.App. 843] The issue in this appeal is whether, pursuant
to General Statutes § 52-72, the return date of a
summary process complaint can be amended to correct the
plaintiffs failure to return the complaint at least three
days before the return date as required by General Statutes §
47a-23a. The defendant, Bolton Works, LLC,
appeals from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial
court in favor of the plaintiff, Connecticut Center for
Advanced Technology, Inc. The defendant claims that the trial
court improperly concluded that § 52-72 permits the amendment
of the return date in the context of summary process actions
and that the court therefore erred in denying its motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs amended complaint for failure to
comply with § 47a-23a. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
following procedural history is relevant to our resolution of
the defendants appeal. The plaintiff brought a summary
process action against the defendant alleging termination of
the lease by lapse of time. [191 Conn.App. 844] The writ of
summons and complaint were dated October 17, 2017, with a
return date of October 26, 2017. Following service on the
defendant, the plaintiff returned the process on October 24,
2017— two days before the return date. The defendant
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
process was not returned at least three days prior to the
return date as required by § 47a-23a.
satisfy the three day requirement of § 47a-23a, the
plaintiff, on November 15, 2017, filed and served an amended
writ of summons and complaint with a return date of November
24, 2017. In response, the defendant filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs amended complaint on December 4,
2017, arguing that the failure to return the complaint in a
summary process action in compliance with § 47a-23a cannot be
cured by amendment and, therefore, the plaintiffs action was
still subject to dismissal. The court denied this motion on
December 12, 2017, concluding that the
plaintiff had properly amended its complaint and the return
date pursuant to § 52-72 so as to comply with § 47a-23a. The
court subsequently rendered judgment of possession in favor
of the plaintiff on December 28, 2017. This appeal followed.
appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly
concluded that § 52-72 permits the amendment of the return
date in the context of summary process actions and that the
court therefore erred in denying its motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs amended complaint.
standard of review for a courts ruling on a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Practice Book § 10-31 (a) (1) is well
settled. "A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia,
whether, on the face of the record, the court is without
jurisdiction.... [O]ur review of the courts ultimate legal
conclusion and resulting [determination] [191 Conn.App. 845]
of the motion to dismiss will be de novo.... When a ... court
decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion
to dismiss, it must consider the allegations of the complaint
in their most favorable light.... In this regard, a court
must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint,
including those facts necessarily implied from the
allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to
the pleader.... The motion to dismiss ... admits all facts
which are well pleaded, invokes the existing record and must
be decided upon that alone.... In undertaking this review, we
are mindful of the ...