Cioffi v. City of Norwalk, No. Cv92 0121636 S (Apr. 15, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Cioffi v. City of Norwalk, No. Cv92 0121636 S (Apr. 15, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 3488

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 15, 1992

DocketNo. CV92 0121636 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 3488 (Cioffi v. City of Norwalk, No. Cv92 0121636 S (Apr. 15, 1992)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cioffi v. City of Norwalk, No. Cv92 0121636 S (Apr. 15, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 3488 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF LAW RE: MOTION TO STRIKE The plaintiff instituted the present action against the CT Page 3489 City of Norwalk, and others, claiming damages for personal injuries sustained when she fell on a broken and uneven public sidewalk. In the Second Count of the Complaint the plaintiff sues the abutting land owner asserting that he permitted the condition to exist. There is no allegation of any duty imposed upon the land owner with respect to the sidewalk in question. See Dennison v. Klotz, 12 Conn. App. 570 (1987) cert. denied.206 Conn. 803 (1988). While the plaintiff asserts that the provisions of the Norwalk City Code relate to the accident, no such claim is alleged in the complaint.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the Second Count of the Complaint is granted.

RUSH, JUDGE.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF LAW RE: MOTION TO STRIKE The plaintiff instituted the present action against the CT Page 3489 City of Norwalk, and others, claiming damages for personal injuries sustained when she fell on a broken and uneven public sidewalk. In the Second Count of the Complaint the plaintiff sues the abutting land owner asserting that he permitted the condition to exist. There is no allegation of any duty imposed upon the land owner with respect to the sidewalk in question. See Dennison v. Klotz, 12 Conn. App. 570 (1987) cert. denied.206 Conn. 803 (1988). While the plaintiff asserts that the provisions of the Norwalk City Code relate to the accident, no such claim is alleged in the complaint.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the Second Count of the Complaint is granted.

RUSH, JUDGE.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 3488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cioffi-v-city-of-norwalk-no-cv92-0121636-s-apr-15-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack