Ryan v. Cassella, 180 Conn. App. 461

Ryan sued for unpaid advertising fees, naming the defendant as "Paul Cascella dba CIA Integrated Marketing Systems" and listing both a Woodbridge (business) and an Orange (residence) address; the defendant’s actual name is Paul A. Cassella (one-letter difference).
Service was made by abode at the Orange address; the defendant did not appear and a default judgment for $8,429.42 was entered after a damages hearing.
The court mailed judgment notices to both addresses and later scheduled an examination of judgment debtor; the defendant failed to appear and the court warned a capias could issue.
The defendant’s attorney wrote that the defendant is Paul A. Cassella, not Paul Cascella, and contested the use of the misnamed person; plaintiff moved to correct the misnomer under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-123, seeking to equate the misspelled name and business variants as the same party.
The trial court granted the motion to correct, denied the defendant’s motions to reargue and to open/vacate, and articulated that there was only one defendant (Paul A. Cassella), properly served, and that the dba designation did not add a separate entity.
Defendant appealed, arguing the court failed to state its legal basis for correction and that correction was barred by the four-month limitation of § 52-212a; the Appellate Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly granted plaintiff’s motion to correct a misnomer (name misspelled by one letter)	Correction under § 52-123 is proper because the misspelling was a circumstantial scrivener’s error and the real party had actual notice	Court failed to state legal basis; correction was improper because it changed party identity	Granted: Court properly corrected the misnomer under § 52-123 — defendant had actual notice, knew he was the proper defendant, and did not show prejudice
Whether correction was barred by the four-month limitation for opening judgments (§ 52-212a) and whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to open/vacate	§ 52-212a does not bar correcting a technical name defect under § 52-123; judgment remained against the individual	§ 52-212a precludes correction more than four months after judgment; correction created an invalid ‘‘individual dba corporation’’ entity and prejudiced defendant	Denied: § 52-212a did not preclude the correction of a misnomer; trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to open/vacate because judgment was against the individual and no prejudice shown

Andover Ltd. Partnership I v. Board of Tax Review, 232 Conn. 392 (1995) (§ 52-123 is remedial and must be liberally construed to cure circumstantial errors)
Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343 (1994) (misnamed defendant is a classic misnomer curable under § 52-123)
Pack v. Burns, 212 Conn. 381 (1989) (factors for distinguishing misnomer vs. substitute party: actual notice, knowledge of being the defendant, absence of prejudice)
Dyck O’Neal, Inc. v. Wynne, 56 Conn. App. 161 (1999) (trial court may correct a party’s name under § 52-123 even if beyond four months, to avoid a misnomer windfall)
Kim v. Magnotta, 249 Conn. 94 (1999) (interpretation of § 52-212a as limiting substantive authority to grant relief after four months)
World Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Alliance Sandblasting Co., 105 Conn. 640 (1927) (amendment to correct misdescription that does not substitute a new party is allowed)
Monti v. Wenkert, 287 Conn. 101 (2008) (the ‘‘dba’’ designation does not create a separate legal entity; it describes the person sued)