Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)

Citation: Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
Parent Document: Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2013-07-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7915215/pollansky-v-pollansky/ ↗

Full Text

1,269 chars

The following facts, as found by the trial court, Cobb, J., and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. In the 1960s, the plaintiff and her late husband, Andrew Poliansky, jointly purchased three *190adjoining parcels of land in Coventry, totaling 84.5 acres (property). Over the years, the property had been used for commercial and recreational purposes; there were no residences on the property. Andrew Poliansky operated a sand and gravel business on the property until he retired in approximately 1992. Steven Poliansky, the son of Andrew Poliansky and the plaintiff, worked in his father’s gravel business on the property from his teenage years until his father retired. After Andrew Pol-iansky retired, he and the plaintiff permitted the defendants—Steven Poliansky; his wife, Darby Poliansky; and their children Kyle Poliansky and Anna P. Polian-sky—to access the property for recreational proposes and, as to Steven Poliansky and Darby Poliansky, for operation of their businesses, Poliansky Construction, LLC, and Skyland Properties, LLC. The plaintiff and Andrew Poliansky gave Steven Poliansky and Darby Poliansky permission to operate their businesses on the property, but there were no written agreements or leases to that effect.

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text