From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Larmel v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 10, 2020
335 Conn. 972 (Conn. 2020)

Opinion

11-10-2020

Phyllis LARMEL v. METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD COMPANY

James P. Brennan, Waterbury, in support of the petition. Beck S. Fineman, Stamford, in opposition.


James P. Brennan, Waterbury, in support of the petition.

Beck S. Fineman, Stamford, in opposition.

The plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 200 Conn. App. 660, 240 A.3d 1056 (2020), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that a judgment rendered after mandatory arbitration pursuant to General Statutes § 52-549u is a ‘trial on the merits' that bars a plaintiff from subsequently utilizing the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592 ?

"2. Was the plaintiff's failure to request a trial de novo pursuant to General Statutes § 52-549z, following entry of the arbitrator's decision under § 52-549u, a ‘matter of form,’ as contemplated by § 52-592 ?"

McDONALD, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.


Summaries of

Larmel v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 10, 2020
335 Conn. 972 (Conn. 2020)
Case details for

Larmel v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Phyllis LARMEL v. METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Nov 10, 2020

Citations

335 Conn. 972 (Conn. 2020)
240 A.3d 676

Citing Cases

State v. Lyons

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Larmel v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co ., 200 Conn. App. 660, 662…

Larmel v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co.

And (2) "[w]as the plaintiff's failure to request a trial de novo pursuant to ... § 52-549z, following entry…