Case Name: State of Connecticut v. John Andrzyski
Court: Connecticut Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1962-11-19
Citations: 1 Conn. Cir. Ct. 487
Docket Number: File No. MV 4-3269
Parties: State of Connecticut v. John Andrzyski
Judges: Pruyn, Kosicki and Dearingtoít, Js., participated in this decision.
Reporter: Connecticut Circuit Court Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 487–488

Head Matter:
State of Connecticut v. John Andrzyski
Appellate Division of the Circuit Court
File No. MV 4-3269
Argued October 19
decided November 19, 1962
Patrick Zailckas, of Waterbury, for the appellant (defendant).
Raymond Quinn, assistant prosecuting attorney, for the appellee (state).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The state moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute with due diligence. Such a motion is addressed to the court's discretion. The state properly abandoned its second ground for dismissal, that the defendant failed to file his assignment of errors in time, for the motion to dismiss on this ground was not made within the proper time limit. Cir. Ct. Rule 7.37.1.
The motion of the defendant to set aside the verdict was denied on June 26, 1962; his appeal was duly filed on July 9, 1962. He did not file a request for a finding or a draft finding, although his intention was to assign error in the charge to the jury. Cir. Ct. Rule 7.32.1. His attorney stated that this was his first Circuit Court appeal, that he was not familiar with the rules of the Circuit Court and that he assumed that the suspension of time limitations during the summertime which applies in appeals to the Supreme Court of Errors under § 414 of the Practice Book applied to the Circuit Court. Within a few days after the state had moved to dismiss the appeal, the defendant, on August 28, 1962, filed a request for a finding and a draft finding. Under the circumstances and in view of the comparatively short lapse of time involved, the motion to dismiss is denied. All Time Mfg. Co. v. Van Steenburgh, 22 Conn. Sup. 464,465.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Pruyn, Kosicki and Dearingtoít, Js., participated in this decision.