DocketNumber: No. CVWA-9802-01481
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2948
Judges: LEVIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/4/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The court finds that in 1994, the plaintiff, who had a small tool and dye operation, was evicted from his business premises. At or about that time, the defendants were starting such a business. The defendant Van Buren told the plaintiff that he could put his equipment in the premises the defendants were leasing, so long as the defendants had access to and could use that equipment. The plaintiff also was afforded access to and use of his equipment. No particular area was assigned for the equipment, no written agreement was made, no monies were paid by the plaintiff to the defendants or others.
The court finds that the plaintiff has not proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he was in actual possession of the premises — that is, that he, individually or by the presence of his equipment, exercised the dominion and control that owners of like property usually exercise. See and compareCommuniter Break Service Co. v. Scinto, supra,
Judgment may enter for the defendants.
BY THE COURT
Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court