73-75 Main Avenue, LLC v. PP Door Enterprise, Inc., 991 A.2d 650 (2010)

Citation: 73-75 Main Avenue, LLC v. PP Door Enterprise, Inc., 991 A.2d 650 (2010)
Parent Document: 73-75 Main Avenue, LLC v. PP Door Enterprise, Inc., 991 A.2d 650 (2010)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2010-03-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2273167/73-75-main-avenue-llc-v-pp-door... ↗

Full Text

1,812 chars

There was, in fact, testimony that Zhang was in an accident late in 2005, but there was no evidence as to the specific date, the existence of, or extent of, any injuries or the circumstances of the accident. There was also no direct evidence that Li stopped paying the rent as a result of the accident, nor does the time line of events necessarily suggest such a conclusion. The first check that Li admitted to writing was in December, 2005, which could support Li’s claim that she only helped Zhang financially due to his accident. Li’s testimony, however, was somewhat contradictory. On direct examination, she testified that Zhang came to her for help after the accident and, before she wrote a check to pay the rent, she went to the leased building to “take a look” and counted the inventoiy. Shortly thereafter, during cross-examination, Li testified that she had not been to the store before she wrote the first check and that it was only after the car accident, when Zhang came to her for help, that she went to look at the store. At the store, Li took inventory and calculated the value of the doors on the premises. As a matter of common sense, if Li only intended to help Zhang because he was injured, it is unlikely that there would be a need to calculate the value of the inventory. Also, as the plaintiff pointed out at trial, it is noteworthy that Li claimed that she entered through the front door of the store but did not notice the name “PP Door” on the wall above the door in large lettering. She testified that she was not paying attention because she was sick due to the car trip to Connecticut. She was not, however, too sick to count all 107 doors that were stocked in the store and to calculate their approximate value. This apparently contradictory testimony provided the court ample *164

Other Sections in This Document (71)

Full Text