JONATHAN E. SILBERT, JUDGE.
On March 29, 2006, this court issued a memorandum of decision denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On April 4, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration and reargument. It contends that the court had neglected to consider the argument, made in its Reply Brief, that independent of the court's determination of the existence of a duty to the decedent in the first count, summary judgment should be granted as to the second, third and fourth counts because § 313 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts bars claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress based solely on witnessing "harm or peril to a third person, unless the negligence of the actor has otherwise created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to another."
Alas, the defendant is correct: the court did neglect to consider this argument in writing its memorandum of decision. There is no need to grant reargument at this point, however, as the issue was both briefed and argued. Reconsideration of the original memorandum of decision is appropriate, however, as the arguments made by the defendant with respect to those three counts are dispositive of them and the only reason they were not reflected in the original decision is that the court neglected to review the reply brief.
Reconsideration is therefore granted, and, having reconsidered the court's prior ruling in light of the parties' arguments and briefs concerning the second, third and fourth counts, the court is filing a Corrected Memorandum of Decision re Motion for Summary Judgment simultaneously with this Memorandum of Decision. CT Page 6753