Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. CV08-5021707S See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. OPINION DAVID CABA v. KENT BROWN ET AL. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#109) LICARI, J. There is no factual dispute here. The dispositive issue is one of statutory interpretation. Does § 52-593 permit this action? The genesis for this action is a three-vehicle collision. In the first action the plaintiff sued only Lorenzo, the operator ahead of him. Lorenzo obtained summary judgment. In this action, under § 52-593 plaintiff sued Brown, the operator behind him as well as Keystone who owned the vehicle operated by Brown. The plaintiff argues § 52-593 applies because he made a factual mistake about the identity of the tortfeasor. It should have been Brown. The defendant counters by arguing that there was no misnomer or misidentification of Lorenzo. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff made no factual mistake. He knew the identity of potential defendants from the police report and failed to include all of them in his first action. There is no second bite of the apple. Familiarity with the caselaw cited by the parties is presumed and need not be generally repeated. The court concludes that § 52-593 is not applicable. As aptly stated in Cogan v. Chase Manhattan Auto Financial Corp., 276 Conn. 1, 11 (2005), the failure to name all the defendants from whom the plaintiff could have recovered in his original action does not constitute a failure to name the right person as a defendant within the meaning of § 52-593. Motion granted. CT Page 4595