Mancini v. Gladstein, No. Cv94 0537086 (Dec. 8, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Mancini v. Gladstein, No. Cv94 0537086 (Dec. 8, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13811

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 8, 1995

DocketNo. CV94 0537086

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13811 (Mancini v. Gladstein, No. Cv94 0537086 (Dec. 8, 1995)) 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

Mancini v. Gladstein, No. Cv94 0537086 (Dec. 8, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13811 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT GLADSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In this personal injury action based on a fall on a sidewalk in front of the Crossroads Plaza Post Office in West Hartford, defendant Gladstein, the owner of the premises moves for summary judgment on the ground that he did not control or maintain the sidewalk in question.

Paragraph eight of the lease raises a genuine issue of material fact, it appearing herein that it was the duty of the CT Page 13812 defendant to maintain the premises. The fact that the United States in the past voluntarily maintained the sidewalk does not relieve the defendant from his duty to maintain the sidewalk. SeePerkel v. Grayson, 119 Conn. 465, 470, (1935). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied because the evidence is insufficient to conclusively find that the United States, rather than Gladstein, exercised exclusive control of the sidewalk question.

Wagner, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT GLADSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In this personal injury action based on a fall on a sidewalk in front of the Crossroads Plaza Post Office in West Hartford, defendant Gladstein, the owner of the premises moves for summary judgment on the ground that he did not control or maintain the sidewalk in question.

Paragraph eight of the lease raises a genuine issue of material fact, it appearing herein that it was the duty of the CT Page 13812 defendant to maintain the premises. The fact that the United States in the past voluntarily maintained the sidewalk does not relieve the defendant from his duty to maintain the sidewalk. SeePerkel v. Grayson, 119 Conn. 465, 470, (1935). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied because the evidence is insufficient to conclusively find that the United States, rather than Gladstein, exercised exclusive control of the sidewalk question.

Wagner, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancini-v-gladstein-no-cv94-0537086-dec-8-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack