Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)

Citation
Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
Parent Document
Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2001-11-13

Full Text

655 chars
These cases make clear that the proper test to apply is whether the court's action causes unfair surprise or prejudice to the defendants. See id.; Criscuolo v. Mauro Motors, Inc., supra, 58 Conn. App. 547. This test is appropriate because, as this court has observed, “[t]he modem trend ... is to construe pleadings broadly and realistically, rather than narrowly and technically.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lyons v. Nichols, 63 Conn. App. 761, 765, 778 A.2d 246, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 906, 782 A.2d 1244 (2001). The complaint should “fairly put the defendant on notice of the claims against him.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 764.