Opinion
No. FST FA 04-4002040 S
March 13, 2007.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REARGUE DATED OCTOBER 31, 2006 (#180.00)
The defendant labeled the above entitled motion a Motion to Reargue. It contains no Wherefore clause, detailed Order or Claims for Relief. The defendant claimed in the body of the Motion to Reargue: "clarification, articulation and alterations" and "clarification, articulation or correction." The Motion to Reargue was addressed to this court's October 12 2006 15-page Memorandum of Decision rendered after a ten-day trial. The defendant supplemented the Motion to Reargue with a letter dated February 21, 2007, which outlined fourteen items that needed to be addressed. A copy of the defendant's February 21, 2007 letter is a pleading in this file.
The court has applied standards contained in Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692-93 (2001) and Shockley v. Okeke, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket Number FST FA 02-0188208 S (Tierney, J., October 6, 2004). The parties appeared and were heard on February 23, 2007. The Motion to Reargue was labeled a Section 11-11 motion by the defendant. No appeal has been filed.
"The constitution guarantees a fair trial and not a perfect trial." State v. Rodgers, 207 Conn. 646, 663 (1988) (Shea, Dissent). "The Court recognized that, given the myriad safeguards provided to assure a fair trial, and taking into account the reality of the human fallibility of the participants, there can be no such thing as an error-free, perfect trial, and that the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial." United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 508-09, 103 S.Ct. 1974 (1983). "Parties to a suit are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial." Shaywitz v. Singing Oaks Day Camp, Inc., 8 Conn.App. 71, 76 (1986).
This decision will discuss the three sections and numbered paragraphs thereof in the defendant's February 21, 2007 letter. The Motion to Reargue is granted and the relief requested is acted on by this court as follows:
I. "The following items require correction:"
1. The word "paid" is substituted for the word "unpaid" in the last sentence of the final full paragraph on page three of this court's October 12, 2006 Memorandum of Decision.
2. Order 20. a): "1999 Ford Probe automobile" is deleted.
3. Order 22. e): "Automobile loan, if any, on the 1999 Ford Probe automobile" is deleted.
4. Request 4. is denied and Order 22. d) remains.
5. Order 23. a): "8695" is deleted and "5626" is substituted. The remaining language of Order 23. a) remains.
6. Request 6 is denied and Order 23. d) remains.
7. Order 19.c): "One-half of the Bank of America savings account, Account Number . . . 2628" is deleted.
8. Order. 19 i): "One-half of the Bank of America checking account, Account # . . . 2686" is deleted.
II. "The following items from the Memorandum of Decision should be clarified and articulated further:"
1. The parties stipulated in open court that the following orders can be added to Order 20:
Order 20. m): "One-half of the Bank of America checking account, Account Number . . . 2636."
Order 20. n): "One-half of the Bank of America checking account # . . . 2628."
2. Order 20. ii) shall now read: "Any 2005 state and federal tax refunds."
CT Page 9343
3. Denied
4. The parties stipulated that this matter is moot.
5. Denied.
III. "The Defendant requests reargument on the following issue."
1. Denied.