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

action.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Historic
       District Commission v. Sciame, 152 Conn. App. 161,
       176, 99 A.3d 207, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 933, 102 A.3d
       84 (2014).
          In Sovereign Bank v. Harrison, supra, 184 Conn.
       App. 444–47, however, this court clarified that when a
       defendant’s pleading filed prior to the plaintiff’s with-
       drawal seeks no affirmative relief or redress, but simply
       asserts a special defense, that pleading does not survive
       the withdrawal. In such a circumstance, the court lacks
       the authority to restore a case to the docket to permit
       the defendant to seek relief that he was not seeking at
       the time of the withdrawal. See id., 443 (‘‘it would be
       anomalous to conclude that the court has the authority
       to restore a counterclaim to the docket where the defen-
       dant had not effectively pleaded a counterclaim’’).
          ‘‘This court has stated previously that [t]he question
       of whether a case should be restored to the docket is
       one of judicial discretion . . . therefore, we review a
       court’s denial of a motion to restore a case to the docket
       for abuse of that discretion.’’ (Footnote omitted; inter-
       nal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. Bemer, supra, 215
       Conn. App. 512–13. To the extent that the defendant’s
       claim involves a question as to the proper interpretation
       of pleadings, however, our review is plenary. Sovereign
       Bank v. Harrison, supra, 184 Conn. App. 442. Likewise,
       ‘‘[a]ny determination regarding the scope of a court’s
       . . . authority to act presents a question of law over
       which our review is plenary.’’ Tarro v. Mastriani
       Realty, LLC, 142 Conn. App. 419, 431, 69 A.3d 956, cert.
       denied, 309 Conn. 912, 69 A.3d 308, and cert. denied,
       309 Conn. 912, 69 A.3d 309 (2013).
          We conclude, on the basis of our review of the record
       in this case, that the court did not abuse its discretion
       in denying the defendant’s motion to restore. At the time
       the plaintiff withdrew this action, the only outstanding
Page 6                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0