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

3
              We recognize that, unlike the defendant in Harrison—who only asserted
         a special defense—the defendant in this case both asserted a special defense
         (retaliatory eviction) and challenged the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
         This distinction, however, does not change our conclusion. This court’s
         holding in Harrison—that the court lacks the authority to restore a case
         to the docket to prosecute a claim for affirmative relief when no such claim
         is pending as of the plaintiff’s withdrawal; see Sovereign Bank v. Harrison,
         supra, 184 Conn. App. 447; requires a court to assess whether or not any
         defense allegations pending at the time of withdrawal represent a claim for
         affirmative relief or redress. If they do not, then the mere fact that they are
         made in a different form from the defense at issue in Harrison does not
         save them from being erased from the docket when the plaintiff withdraws
         the case or mean that the court is authorized to subsequently restore the
         case to the docket so that the defendant may prosecute new claims for
         affirmative relief. See id., 446, 447 (explaining that court lacked authority
         to restore case to docket because ‘‘[n]othing in [the defendant’s] allegation
         can reasonably be interpreted as a claim of entitlement to affirmative relief’’
         and ‘‘the defendant would not be entitled to any affirmative relief under
         this allegation’’).
            4
              After he filed his principal appellate brief, the defendant filed several
         notices of supplemental authority with this court pursuant to Practice Book
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 7