Opinion
(5669)
Argued February 9, 1988
Decision released March 2, 1988
Action to recover damages for alleged negligent performance of rent receivership duties, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, where the court, F. X. Hennessey, J., granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. No error.
Stanley V. Tucker, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
Bourke G. Spellacy, with whom, on the brief, were Karen P. Blado and D. William White, for the appellee (named defendant).
Jeffrey L. Williams, with whom, on the brief, was Barbara B. Sacks, for the appellees (defendant Timothy McNally et al.).
William J. Melley III, for the appellee (defendant Peerless Insurance Company).
The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the court erred (1) in granting summary judgment based on a defense which was not specially pleaded by the defendants, (2) by not finding that permission of the court is unnecessary to sue a court appointed receiver after the receivership has been terminated, (3) in finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs failure to obtain permission to sue the receiver, (4) in unconstitutionally denying the plaintiff access to the courts, and (5) in rendering summary judgment "on grounds in law and fact that are false."
This case is controlled by our decision in Tucker v. American Ins. Co., 3 Conn. App. 397, 488 A.2d 1278, cert. denied, 196 Conn. 802, 492 A.2d 1239 (1985). "`A receiver appointed by judicial authority cannot, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, be subjected to suit without the leave of the court whose officer he is, granted in the cause in which he was appointed.'" Id., 399, quoting Links v. Connecticut River Banking Co., 66 Conn. 277, 284, 33 A. 1003 (1895). The plaintiff's failure to obtain permission of the court to sue the receiver is dispositive of this appeal.