Opinion
No. 388334
December 16, 1998
ORDER
I have examined Public Act No. 98-140, § 6, which amended General Statutes § 52-577c, together with the legislative history of that Public Act. Whether, in light of a change in the statute; see Republic Ins. Co. v. Pat Dinardo Auto Sales, 44 Conn. Sup. 207, 211-218, 678 A.2d 516 (1995), affirmed (per curiam), 41 Conn. App. 686, 677 A.2d 21 (1996); the substituted complaint is substantially different than the complaint ordered stricken by the court ( O'Keefe, J.), within the rule of such cases as Parsons v. United Technologies Corporation, 243 Conn. 66, 74, 700 A.2d 655 (1997); Royce v. Westport, 183 Conn. 177, 179, 439 A.2d 298 (1981); Good Humor Corp. v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 135, 273 A.2d 886 (1970); Hillyer v. Winsted, 77 Conn. 304, 306, 59 A. 40 (1904); P L Properties, Inc. v. Schnip Development Corp., 35 Conn. App. 46, 49, 643 A.2d 1302, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913, 648 A.2d 155 (1994), and Nestor v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 41 Conn. App. 625, 627 n. 3, 677 A.2d 475 (1996); ought not be determined on a request to revise. The objection to the request to revise, therefore, is sustained.
See Proceedings before the General Assembly, House of Representatives, April 20, 1998, pp. 1415, 3541-3548; Proceedings before the General Assembly, Senate, April 15, 1998, pp. 1319-1322, 1358-1361, 2501-2502, 2603-2605; Proceedings before the Committee on the Environment, March 9, 1998, pp. 549-550, 627-631, 633-634, 636-638, 660-662.
BY THE COURT
Bruce L. Levin Judge of the Superior Court