*********************************************** 

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. 

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 advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest 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 the 

opinion as it appears 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. 

*********************************************** 
STEVEN K. STANLEY v. ALISON M.

WOODARD ET AL.

(AC 44279)

Moll, Alexander and Pellegrino, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the decree of the Probate Court

appointing the defendant H as the conservator of the estate of the

plaintiff’s mother. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, as it was filed pursuant to the accidental failure of

suit statute (§ 52-592 (a)), which does not apply to probate appeals. The

plaintiff filed a motion to open and vacate the judgment of dismissal,

which the trial court denied. On the plaintiff’s appeal to this court, held

that there was no basis on which to conclude that the trial court abused

its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to open.

Argued February 10—officially released March 8, 2022

Procedural History

Appeal from the decree of the Probate Court for the

district of Tolland appointing the defendant Harold J.

Stanley as the conservator of the estate of the defendant

Christine Stanley, brought to the Superior Court in the

judicial district of Tolland, where the court, Farley, J.,

rendered judgment dismissing the appeal; thereafter,

the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to open and

vacate the judgment, and the plaintiff appealed to this

court. Affirmed.

Steven K. Stanley, self-represented, the appellant

(plaintiff).

Laura D. Thurston, assistant attorney general, with

whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Clare Kindall, solicitor general, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).

Vianca T. Malick, for the appellee (defendant Rebecca

Ellert).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The self-represented plaintiff, Steven

K. Stanley, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his

motion to open and vacate the judgment of dismissal.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

On February 14, 2020, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

the plaintiff’s underlying probate appeal,1filed pursuant

to General Statutes § 52-592 (a), the accidental failure

of suit statute, on the ground that § 52-592 (a) does not

apply to probate appeals. See Metcalfe v. Sandford, 271

Conn. 531, 535–40, 858 A.2d 757 (2004). On July 15,

2020, the plaintiff filed a motion to open and vacate the

judgment of dismissal (motion to open). On July 27,

2020, in a one word order, the trial court denied the

plaintiff’s motion to open.2 This appeal followed.

Notwithstanding the arguments made by the plaintiff

in his appellate brief and during oral argument before

this court directly attacking the trial court’s judgment

of dismissal, we first note that the plaintiff did not file

an appeal—timely or otherwise—from the judgment of

dismissal. Instead, the plaintiff appeals from the trial

court’s denial of his motion to open. Therefore, the

standard of review governing the plaintiff’s appeal is

one of abuse of discretion rather than the plenary appellate standard of review.

‘‘A motion to open and vacate a judgment . . . is

addressed to the [trial] court’s discretion, and the action

of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless

it acted unreasonably and in clear abuse of its discretion. . . . In determining whether the trial court

abused its discretion, this court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of its action. . . . The

manner in which [this] discretion is exercised will not

be disturbed so long as the court could reasonably

conclude as it did.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Walton v. New Hartford, 223 Conn.

155, 169–70, 612 A.2d 1153 (1992).

On the basis of our review of the record and our

consideration of the briefs and argument of the parties,

we perceive no basis on which to conclude that the

trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s

motion to open.

The judgment is affirmed.

1 Although the plaintiff’s complaint was titled ‘‘Civil Tort Claims Act,’’ it

sought, by its express terms, an order of the Superior Court vacating a

decree by the defendant Judge Barbara Riordan Gardner of the Probate

Court appointing the defendant Harold J. Stanley as the conservator of the

estate of the plaintiff’s mother, the defendant Christine Stanley. Alison M.

Woodard, Lara Stauning, Linda Balfe, Rebecca Ellert, Kevin Stanley, Paul

Stanley, and Sophia H. Shaikh were also defendants.

2 None of the parties sought an articulation from the trial court pursuant

to Practice Book § 66-5 following the filing of this appeal.