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

1,185 chars

Over the defendants’ objection, the court permitted the plaintiff to introduce testimony of an expert appraiser. The court, Cobb, J., permitted the plaintiffs expert to testify based on the plaintiffs representation that the court, Mullarkey, J., verbally ordered the plaintiff to present an expert appraisal in connection with a motion for use and occupancy payments. The court, Cobb, J., at trial, reasoned that the defendants had notice of the witness because of Judge Mullarkey’s order and further stated that it would give the defendants time to bring in their own appraiser, if they wished to do so. The plaintiff introduced at trial the expert’s report on the value of the property and elicited testimony from the expert regarding the fair market rental value of the property. The defendants argue that the court erred in admitting the expert testimony because the plaintiff did not provide notice of her expert under Practice Book § 13-4 and because the testimony was prejudicial. The defendants argue that regardless of Judge Mullarkey’s prior order and regardless of the fact *203that the hearing on use and occupancy did not occur, the testimony nonetheless was prejudicial.

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text