Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Citation
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Parent Document
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-01-30
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
Full Text
1,032 charsAs an initial matter we note that “[t]he trial court has broad discretion to determine the relevancy of evidence, and we will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chapman v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 39 Conn. App. 306, 317, 665 A.2d 112, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 925, 666 A.2d 1185 (1995). The record reveals that the trial court sustained the defendants’ objection to questions concerned with other properties owned by them, noting that it was “concerned with the premises.”7 The trial court then allowed the plaintiff to question Gaines concerning whether she knew of any other apartments within the same building that contained similar levels of lead. We conclude that the trial court properly excluded the evidence of lead levels in other *227properties as irrelevant to the issues before the court involving the subject premises.8 The judgment is affirmed. In this opinion the other judges concurred.