Case Name: Anita H. Hartmann, Administratrix (Estate of William Wordie) v. Richard J. Smith et al., Trustees of the Property of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1969-05-13
Citations: 158 Conn. 613
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anita H. Hartmann, Administratrix (Estate of William Wordie) v. Richard J. Smith et al., Trustees of the Property of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
Anita H. Hartmann, Administratrix (Estate of William Wordie) v. Richard J. Smith et al., Trustees of the Property of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company
King, C. .L, Alcorn, House, Thim and Ryan, Js.
Argued May 8
decided May 13, 1969
Arthur Levy, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Irwin E. Friedman, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Joseph P. Cooney, with whom, on the brief, were John D. McHugh and David T. Ryan, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff, on appeal to this court, claimed for the first time that the defendants' motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the defendants had not filed an answer to her complaint. Practice Book § 298. Because the question was not raised in or decided by the trial court, we decline to consider it. Practice Book § 223, 652.
The plaintiff's counter affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment presented no genuine issue of fact as to whether the decedent, whose body was found on the tracks of the New Haven Bailroad, had been a passenger on the defendants' train or as to how he met his death. It is not enough that one opposing a motion for a summary judgment claims there is a genuine issue of material fact; some evidence showing the existence of such an issue must be presented in the counter affidavit. Practice Book § 299, 300; Boyce v. Merchants Fire Ins. Co., 204 F. Sup. 311, 314 (D. Conn.); Kasowitz v. Mutual Construction Co., 154 Conn. 607, 613, 228 A.2d 149. The court therefore properly granted the motion for summary judgment.
There is no error.