Leech v. Rozbicki

Robinson Leech v. Zbigniew Rozbicki

Leech v. Rozbicki, 552 A.2d 451 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided: January 17, 1989
Docket: No. 6459
Citations: 552 A.2d 45117 Conn. App. 3521989 Conn. App. LEXIS 14

Cited by 5

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered for the plaintiff upon a jury verdict. By revised *353 complaint, the plaintiff, a real estate agent, claimed that the defendant tortiously interfered with a contractual relationship by inducing the plaintiffs customer, Helen Huybrechts, to breach her contract with the plaintiff.

The defendant claims that the trial court erred (1) in denying his motions for a directed verdict, to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which were predicated on insufficiency of the evidence, (2) in allowing an amendment of the complaint late in the trial, (3) in refusing to submit requested interrogatories to the jury, and (4) in admitting a mortgage application into evidence.

On appeal, rulings on such matters will be disturbed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Boucino, 199 Conn. 207, 225 , 506 A.2d 125 (1986); Wassell v. Hamblin, 196 Conn. 463, 466 , 493 A.2d 870 (1985); Hearl v. Waterbury YMCA, 187 Conn. 1, 3 , 444 A.2d 211 (1982); Hartford v. Anderson Fairoaks, Inc., 7 Conn. App. 591, 595 , 510 A.2d 200 (1986).

Our review of the record indicates that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict and therefore to support the court’s denial of the defendant’s motions. It indicates that the court acted within its broad discretion in allowing an amendment to the complaint under Practice Book § 178. We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to submit the requested interrogatories on issues that were either covered by the court’s jury instructions or that had become moot with the amendment of the complaint, or in admitting the mortgage application under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

There is no error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts5

Relies on it most ⓘ

Coles v. Coles553 A.2d 1169 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Cromwell Commons Associates v. Koziura570 A.2d 1131 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
Pietra v. American Factors, Inc.556 A.2d 1064 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Hughes v. Town of Glastonbury562 A.2d 591 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Strother v. Strother572 A.2d 391 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)

Most recent

Cromwell Commons Associates v. Koziura570 A.2d 1131 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
Strother v. Strother572 A.2d 391 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
Hughes v. Town of Glastonbury562 A.2d 591 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Pietra v. American Factors, Inc.556 A.2d 1064 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Coles v. Coles553 A.2d 1169 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State v. Boucino, 506 A.2d 125 (Conn. 1986)	91
	Hearl v. Waterbury Ymca, 444 A.2d 211 (Conn. 1982)	26
	Wassell v. Hamblin, 493 A.2d 870 (Conn. 1985)	24
	City of Hartford v. Anderson Fairoaks, Inc., 510 A.2d 200 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986)	18

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list