Section 47a-23

Citation: Section 47a-23
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

1,228 chars

The plaintiff testified that she did not want equipment, such as bulldozers and trucks, owned by her late husband, to be removed from the property. The plaintiffs attorney stated that evidence of personal property was relevant because the plaintiff was requesting an order to restrain the defendants’ removal of these items. The court overruled the objection and stated “you can argue in your brief why it shouldn’t be relevant to these proceedings.” Without objection, the plaintiffs counsel submitted into evidence a list of equipment the plaintiff did not want removed from the property. When Steven Poliansky testified on direct examination regarding his maintenance and financial contributions of specific items on the list, the plaintiffs counsel objected. The court stated that the plaintiff brought a summary process action and “I don’t know why we’re spending all our time on this because I’m not going to decide in this case who gets that property. I’m only going to decide who gets to stay and who’s going. ... I didn’t know what it was when I heard it the first time. Does anyone disagree that I’m not going to decide who gets the property in the lawsuit?” Counsel for both parties stated that they did not disagree.

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text