the purpose of amending the complaint was solely to remedy a typographical error. The defendant’s substantive rights were not affected by the amendment, and she has not demonstrated prejudice. “If the effect of an amendment of a complaint so made is to substantially change the cause of action originally stated, the defendant is entitled to file new or amended pleadings and present further evidence. Also, if the amendment interjects material new issues, the adversary is entitled to reasonable opportunity to meet them by pleading and proof.” Mazulis v. Zeldner, 116 Conn. 314, 317, 164 A. 713 (1933). No change of any kind, and thus certainly not a substantial change, was made to the cause of action in the present case. See Richards v. Trudeau, 54 Conn. App. 859, 863, 738 A.2d 215 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The court properly exercised its discretion
holding that court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give effect to defendants answer when filed almost one year after default entered against them holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a mere inspection instruction in a firearm possession case holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider affidavits filed with a surreply when counsel offered absolutely no explanation for its failure to introduce the evidence earlier holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify class action when claims were so individualized that certification was improper holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that motion to set aside default made at least seven months after defendant learned of entry of default was not made within a reasonable time