LaBow v. LaBow (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** LaBow v. LaBow CONCURRENCE BERDON, J., concurring. This case was properly decided by the trial court under the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Ronald LaBow, because there were no new factual issues raised by the plaintiff, Myrna LaBow,1 not as a result of waiver as the majority contends. The plaintiff already has had her day in court. See LaBow v. LaBow, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. 210394 (March 15, 1999). We affirmed that judgment in a per curiam decision. LaBow v. LaBow, 65 Conn. App. 210, 782 A.2d 200, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 943, 786 A.2d 430 (2001). Accordingly, the defendant s motion to dismiss was correctly granted. 1 In Ruddock v. Burrowes, 243 Conn. 569, 572 73, 706 A.2d 967 (1998), the majority of our Supreme Court held that a motion for summary judgment was not properly used to determine the applicability of General Statutes ยง 52-592 (a), the accidental failure of suit statute, because there were factual issues raised.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
