Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden, 229 Conn. App. 811 (2024)

The following legal principles and standards of
       review govern our resolution of the defendant’s claim.
       General Statutes § 52-80 provides in relevant part that
       a plaintiff ‘‘may withdraw any action so returned to and
       entered in the docket of any court, before the com-
       mencement of a hearing on the merits thereof. . . .’’
       ‘‘The right of a plaintiff to withdraw his action before
       a hearing on the merits, as allowed by . . . § 52-80, is
       absolute and unconditional.’’ (Internal quotation marks
       omitted.) Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America
       v. Twine, 120 Conn. App. 823, 826–27, 993 A.2d 470
       (2010). ‘‘Under [the] law, the effect of a withdrawal, so
       far as the pendency of the action is concerned, is strictly
       analogous to that presented after the rendition of a final
       judgment or the erasure of the case from the docket.
       . . . The court unless [the action] is restored to the
       docket cannot proceed with it further . . . .’’ (Internal
       of this new action, which we granted on October 15, 2024. On October 31,
       2024, following oral argument before this court in the present case, the trial
       court dismissed the new summary process action, finding that the plaintiff
       had submitted ‘‘knowingly false or intentionally misleading’’ affidavits pursu-
       ant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,
       Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020), and that the plaintiff had failed
       to provide the defendant with thirty days’ notice to vacate, as required under
       the CARES Act.
Page 4                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0