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
Other Sections in This Document (7)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
- Yorgensen v. Brophy Ahern Development Co., 66 Conn. App. 833 (2001)
Full Text
655 charsThese 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.