DocketNumber: No. CV97 034 28 57 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 12796
Judges: GORMLEY, J.
Filed Date: 10/5/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant's brief treats it as both and claims that whatever it is, it should be denied. The plaintiff's brief on page 3 acknowledges that the Board of Assessment Appeals has not acted on this matter and that, therefore, this appeal of necessity must be under §
At the close of evidence in this case, the plaintiff requested to orally amend the complaint to add the assessment years October 1, 1993 and October 1, 1994, and upon objection, the court sustained the objection to the requested amendment.
Section
There was no objection to the evidence on the basis that it had no relevance to the claims set forth in the complaint. There also was no request to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence. Simply put, no evidence was offered to prove the complaint as it is on file, and judgment shall enter for the defendant because of a lack of proof.
To the extent that some higher authority should conclude that the court should somehow make the complaint something that it is not, the court will opine on the issue of the property's location. After several requests by the City to the plaintiff to CT Page 12798 provide it information concerning personal property located in the City of Bridgeport, most of which were ignored, the plaintiff's accountant supplied a spread sheet of personal property upon which the City came up with its assessment of $36,293. That list did not indicate that the property was located other than in Bridgeport. Now the plaintiff's president has testified that some of it was located in either Bridgeport, Stratford or Puerto Rico. As of the date of October 1, 1995, the court, based on the testimony offered by Mr. Parnoff, is not able to conclude what items were where as of that date.
To confuse matters further, at the conclusion of his testimony, Mr. Parnoff stated he did not think the plaintiff actually owned any of the personal property because of the fact he believes he put all of that property into an educational trust for his children. On this confused state of facts, the court concludes that the plaintiff has not met its burden of proof and judgment will enter for the defendant sustaining its valuation of the property of $36,295.
GORMLEY, J.