Opinion
HHDCV136039637
10-31-2017
T& M Building Co., Inc. v. William Hastings
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ARTICULATION
Nina F. Elgo, J.
This articulation is rendered pursuant to the order issued by the Appellate Court in this matter granting the plaintiff's motion for review and its specific request to articulate the factual and legal basis for this court's denial of the motion to reargue and/or for reconsideration dated October 26, 2015. The plaintiff's remaining requests for relief were denied.
" [T]he purpose of a reargument is . . . to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts . . . [A] motion to reargue . . . is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple or to present additional cases or briefs which could have been presented at the time of the original argument." Chartouni v. DeJesus, 107 Conn.App. 127, 129, 944 A.2d 393, 395 (2008).
The plaintiff's complaint alleged in count one an action seeking specific performance in count two, damages based on breach of contract; count three, unjust enrichment, count four, a claim of violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and count five, promissory estoppel. In its decision of October 5, 2015, the court addressed each of these claims as well as the defendant's statute of frauds defense, found for the defendant on each count. This court denies the motion for reargument and reconsideration because it does not find that the plaintiff asserts claims which this court did not sufficiently address in the first instance in its memorandum of decision nor does it find that the plaintiff has raised issues which would have controlling effect on this court's ultimate findings or conclusions of law.
To the extent that the plaintiff seeks from this court " an instruction" to the escrow holder, in this case, counsel for the defendant, to release the $94, 300 deposit and to return it to the plaintiff, the court notes that it is undisputed that the defendant does not claim a right to the deposit and that the plaintiff refused the return of the deposit. In footnote 2, the plaintiff concedes in its motion that it returned the deposit because " it still hoped to resolve the defendant's concerns, and because he was concerned that if he accepted the deposit back he would be subject to future claims by the defendant of accord and satisfaction, mutual agreement to rescind the contract or the like . . ." This court, however, is charged with resolving disputes which are properly before it. Although the plaintiff cites to General Statutes § 51-81h and Young v. Young, 64 Conn.App. 651, 655-56, 781 A.2d 342, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 908, 782 A.2d 1255 (2001), this court finds that they do not provide authority for this court to enter a unilateral order under these circumstances.
According to footnote 4 of the plaintiff's motion, the defendant continues not to claim a right to the deposit.
Since the court found in favor of the defendant, and since the defendant apparently continues not to claim a right to those monies, the plaintiff is free to seek the return of the deposit. Since the court found in favor of the defendant, this court's intervention as to that issue was not necessary nor did the plaintiff provide this court with relevant authority requiring it to do so in the absence of a dispute between the parties which this court has not already resolved.