Council v. Hein

── Council v. Hein ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 21, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Council v. Hein PRISCILLA COUNCIL v. SKYLAR HEIN ET AL. (AC 47918) Cradle, C. J., and Westbrook and Norcott, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her personal injury action brought pursuant to the accidental failure of suit statute (§ 52-592 (a)). The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in consider- ing and granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss because it was not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the applicability of § 52-592. Held: This court concluded that, although the trial court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss because it was not the proper procedural vehicle for challenging the applicability of § 52-592, the plaintiff failed to offer even remote factual support for her action under § 52-592 and failed to demonstrate how she was harmed by the court’s error; accordingly, the form of the judgment was improper. Argued October 20, 2025—officially released April 21, 2026 Procedural History Action to recover damages for, inter alia, negligence, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, where the court, Shaban, J., granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Improper form of judgment; reversed; judgment directed. Raneil A. Smith, with whom, on the brief, was Frank A. Denicola, for the appellant (plaintiff). Philip T. Newbury, Jr., for the appellees (defendants). Opinion WESTBROOK, J. The plaintiff, Priscilla Council, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her personal injury action brought against the defen- dants, Skylar Hein (Skylar) and Jeffrey Hein (Jeffrey), pursuant to General Statutes § 52-592 (a), the accidental failure of suit statute.1 The plaintiff claims that the 1 General Statutes § 52-592 (a) provides in relevant part: “If any action, commenced within the time limited by law, has failed one or more times to be tried on its merits because of insufficient service or return of the  Council v. Hein court erred in considering and granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss because it was not the proper proce- dural vehicle to challenge the applicability of § 52-592 (a). We agree with the plaintiff’s claim but conclude that she has failed to demonstrate how she was harmed by the court’s error. We further conclude that the form of the