SHAPIRO, JUDGE.
The defendant's motion to strike (##106 and 106.10) appeared on the short calendar for October 25, 2004, at which time the court heard oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
In the motion, the defendant contends that paragraph four of the plaintiff's complaint should be stricken, since it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Paragraph four states, "[a]t the same time, the plaintiff was not secured by a seatbelt or other safety restraint device, although in the exercise of due care the State of Connecticut would have provided and utilized such a device." In addition, the defendant seeks to strike the portion of the plaintiff's prayer for relief which states that an amount of judgment is sought "exclusive of interest and costs."
The standard of review on a motion to strike is well established. "We take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint . . . and we construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency . . . Thus, [i]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied . . . Moreover, we note that [w]hat is necessarily implied [in an allegation] need not be expressly alleged . . . It is fundamental that in determining the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a defendant's motion to strike, all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken as admitted . . . Indeed, pleadings must be construed broadly and realistically; rather than narrowly and technically . . ." (Citations omitted and internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Labor v. C.J.M. Services, Inc., 268 Conn. 283, 292-93, 842 A.2d 1124 (2004).
"Although there is a split of authority, most trial courts follow the rule that a single paragraph of a pleading is subject to a motion to strike only when it attempts to set forth all of the essential CT Page 16351 allegations of a cause of action or defense . . . [O]nly an entire count . . . or an entire special defense can be subject to a motion to strike, unless the individual paragraph embodies an entire cause of action or defense." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colon v. SNET, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV01 0385673 (May 21, 2002, Gallagher, J.), n. 3. This court agrees with the majority. See Peterken v. Epright, Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex at Middletown, Docket No. CV 01 0096940 (July 29, 2002, Shapiro, J.) ( 32 Conn. L. Rptr. 571). Here, the plaintiff has objected to consideration of the motion on this ground and, therefore, has not waived the issue. See id., 572.
The challenged paragraph does not embody an entire cause of action. Accordingly, the court may not grant the motion to strike it.
As noted, the defendant also seeks to strike the portion of the plaintiff's prayer for relief which states that the amount claimed is "exclusive of interest and costs." The defendant contends that neither interest or costs may be awarded against the State.
While Practice Book § 10-39(a)(2) permits a motion to strike to challenge the legal sufficiency of a prayer for relief, here the phrase "exclusive of interest and costs" is required by the General Statutes and by the Practice Book to be included in a prayer for relief where money damages are sought. See General Statute § 52-91 (concerning contents of complaint). Practice Book § 10-20 states that "[w]hen money damages are sought in the demand for relief, the demand for relief shall include the information required by General Statutes § 52-91." See Southington '84 Associates v. Silver Dollar Stores, Inc., 237 Conn. 758, 769, 678 A.2d 968 (1996).
Section 52-91 provides, in pertinent part: "When money damages are sought in the demand for relief, the demand for relief shall set forth: CT Page 16352 (1) That the amount, legal interest or property in demand is fifteen thousand dollars or more, exclusive of interest and costs; or (2) that the amount, legal interest or property in demand is two thousand five hundred dollars or more but is less than fifteen thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs; or (3) that the amount, legal interest or property in demand is less than two thousand five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs."
Since the pleading of the challenged phrase is required as a formal part of a claim for relief, the motion to strike it must be denied, regardless of whether such an award may be made against the State.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to strike is denied. It is so ordered.
ROBERT B. SHAPIRO JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT