Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)

Citation
Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Parent Document
Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2012-04-17

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text

981 chars
The defendants objected to expert testimony that Interstate’s actions amounted to a “disregard” of industry fire safety standards. The court sustained the objection, ruling that the expert could testify with regard to the existence of the violations of industry standards but not the extent of the violations. The expert’s characterization of Interstate’s conduct as a “reckless act” was in his written report, which was entered as a full exhibit at trial without objection by the defendants. If the defendants believed that the expert’s report drew impermissible legal conclusions, they had the opportunity to make this objection at trial. To the extent that the defendants now attempt to make this argument for the first time on appeal, we decline to afford it review. See, e.g., Balaska v. Balaska, 130 Conn. App. 510, 519, 25 A.3d 680 (2011) (“generally this court will not review claims that were not properly preserved in the trial court” [internal quotation marks omitted]).