Court Opinion

ID: 9749953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:07:29.993368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:00.533357
License: Public Domain

*453Murphy, J.
(dissenting in part). Although it is with some reluctance that I agree to the restoration of the Chanosky and Segar cases, I am unwilling to do so in the Shay ease. The lack of proper diligence in prosecuting this appeal is so obvious that it should be treated differently from the other two.
The appeal in the Shay case has been pending since September 12, 1963, in the Chanosky ease since June 17, 1964, and in the Segar case since June 6, 1964, so that the Shay ease is nine months older. In Chanosky, two and in Segar, three extensions of time to file briefs were obtained before the appellants were summoned to show cause why those appeals should not be dismissed. In Shay, the defendant appellant received six extensions of time to file its request for finding and draft finding. When filed, they were almost three months overdue under the rules. After the finding was made, the defendant’s assignment of errors was not filed until more than two weeks after it should have been. Since the distribution of the printed record, the defendant obtained, with the adversary’s consent, three extensions of time in which to file its brief and appendix before it received notice on November 19, 1964, to show cause on December 1 why the appeal should not be dismissed. The last extension was to expire on November 20, the day on which the defendant obtained from the trial judge a further extension to file its brief and appendix. This extension was granted ex parte in violation of Practice Book § 665. It had not been consented to by the adverse party and therefore action on it should have been delayed for five days to allow the adversary an opportunity to be heard on the extension.
Coupled with these facts was the uncontradicted *454statement of the adversary that in September, he had warned the defendant that this court would “lower the boom” on it because of the repeated requests for extensions. Having lowered it, with sufficient cause for so doing, we should let it remain in that position.