commits plain error in Connecticut

2008“A trial court commits plain error when it fails to apply a clearly relevant statute to the case before it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Guckian, 27 Conn. App. 225, 246 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992), aff'd, 226 Conn. 191 , 627 A.2d 407 (1993).

2008“A trial court commits plain error when it fails to apply a clearly relevant statute to the case before it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Guckian, 27 Conn. App. 225, 246 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992), aff'd, 226 Conn. 191 , 627 A.2d 407 (1993).

2008“A trial court commits plain error when it fails to apply a clearly relevant statute to the case before it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Guckian, 27 Conn. App. 225, 246 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992), aff'd, 226 Conn. 191 , 627 A.2d 407 (1993).

2008“A trial court commits plain error when it fails to apply a clearly relevant statute to the case before it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Guckian, 27 Conn. App. 225, 246 , 605 A.2d 874 (1992), aff'd, 226 Conn. 191 , 627 A.2d 407 (1993).

2017In Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bertrand, supra, 140 Conn. App. at 662 , 59 A.3d 864 , this court noted: "We acknowledge that there is support for the proposition that a court commits plain error if, prior to rendering a judgment upon default, the court fails to accept for filing a defaulted party's pleading solely on the ground that the pleading is untimely....

2017In Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Bertrand, supra, 140 Conn. App. at 662 , 59 A.3d 864 , this court noted: "We acknowledge that there is support for the proposition that a court commits plain error if, prior to rendering a judgment upon default, the court fails to accept for filing a defaulted party's pleading solely on the ground that the pleading is untimely....

1992A court commits plain error when it fails to implement properly the mandatory provisions of clearly applicable rules of practice; Cummings & Lockwood v. Gray, 26 Conn. App. 293, 300 , 600 A.2d 1040 (1991); In re Jonathan P., 23 Conn. App. 207, 211 , 579 A.2d 587 (1990); and clearly applicable statutes prescribing trial procedures.

1992A court commits plain error when it fails to implement properly the mandatory provisions of clearly applicable rules of practice; Cummings & Lockwood v. Gray, 26 Conn. App. 293, 300 , 600 A.2d 1040 (1991); In re Jonathan P., 23 Conn. App. 207, 211 , 579 A.2d 587 (1990); and clearly applicable statutes prescribing trial procedures.

1992A court commits plain error when it fails to implement properly the mandatory provisions of clearly applicable rules of practice; Cummings & Lockwood v. Gray, 26 Conn. App. 293, 300 , 600 A.2d 1040 (1991); In re Jonathan P., 23 Conn. App. 207, 211 , 579 A.2d 587 (1990); and clearly applicable statutes prescribing trial procedures.

1992A court commits plain error when it fails to implement properly the mandatory provisions of clearly applicable rules of practice; Cummings & Lockwood v. Gray, 26 Conn. App. 293, 300 , 600 A.2d 1040 (1991); In re Jonathan P., 23 Conn. App. 207, 211 , 579 A.2d 587 (1990); and clearly applicable statutes prescribing trial procedures.

2018General Statutes § 52-121 (a) provides in relevant part: Any pleading in any civil action may be filed after the expiration of the time fixed by statute or by any rule of the court until the court has heard any motion for judgment by default ... for failure to plead which has been filed in writing with the court in which the action is pending." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People's United Bank v. Bok , supra, 143 Conn. App. at 268 , 70 A.3d 1074 .

2018General Statutes § 52-121 (a) provides in relevant part: Any pleading in any civil action may be filed after the expiration of the time fixed by statute or by any rule of the court until the court has heard any motion for judgment by default ... for failure to plead which has been filed in writing with the court in which the action is pending." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People's United Bank v. Bok , supra, 143 Conn. App. at 268 , 70 A.3d 1074 .

2017The court's ruling, based in part on its consideration of the defendant's failure to move to open, is supported by this court's conclusion in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cornelius , supra, 170 Conn. App. at 117 , 154 A.3d 79 , in which this court recently rejected a defendant's argument that " § 52-121 requires a trial court to consider the merits of a motion to strike even after a default has been entered so long as no judgment has been rendered." This court quoted Bertrand , stating: "We acknowledge that there is support for the proposition that a court commits plain error if, prior

2017The court's ruling, based in part on its consideration of the defendant's failure to move to open, is supported by this court's conclusion in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cornelius , supra, 170 Conn. App. at 117 , 154 A.3d 79 , in which this court recently rejected a defendant's argument that " § 52-121 requires a trial court to consider the merits of a motion to strike even after a default has been entered so long as no judgment has been rendered." This court quoted Bertrand , stating: "We acknowledge that there is support for the proposition that a court commits plain error if, prior

2008“It is plain error for a trial court to fail to apply an applicable statute, even in the absence of the statute having been brought to its attention by the parties.” Genovese v. Gallo Wine Merchants, Inc., 226 Conn. 475 , *508 480 n.6, 628 A.2d 946 (1993). 5 Here, the court failed to order specific steps.

2008“It is plain error for a trial court to fail to apply an applicable statute, even in the absence of the statute having been brought to its attention by the parties.” Genovese v. Gallo Wine Merchants, Inc., 226 Conn. 475 , *508 480 n.6, 628 A.2d 946 (1993). 5 Here, the court failed to order specific steps.

1992State v. Johnson, 214 Conn. 161 , 171 n.10, 571 A.2d 79 (1990); State v. Guckian, supra. In such cases, “the plain error doctrine must be invoked.” In re Jonathan P., supra. This is such a case.

1992State v. Johnson, 214 Conn. 161 , 171 n.10, 571 A.2d 79 (1990); State v. Guckian, supra. In such cases, “the plain error doctrine must be invoked.” In re Jonathan P., supra. This is such a case.