DocketNumber: No. 327596
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7214
Judges: LEVIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 12/10/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In view of the broad allegations of the counterclaim including the allegation that the "intervening plaintiffs were in complete possession and control of their work site at the premises where plaintiff's injury allegedly occurred", the court, bound by the settled standard by which to construe such allegations on a motion to strike, must deny the motion based onFerryman v. Groton, supra.2 The defendants' claims must await summary judgment procedure when the court, with the benefit of "such documents as may be appropriate, including but not limited to affidavits, certified transcripts of testimony under oath, disclosures, written admissions and the like"; Practice Book § 380; may recognize the reality of the case. See S.E.C. v.Research Automation Corp.,
The motion to strike is denied.
BY THE COURT
Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court