Document for SWEENEY, ANDREW v. BRT PARK RIDGE, LLC Et Al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                RETURN: FEBRUARY 27, 2024                             SUPERIOR COURT

       ANDREW SWEENEY                                        JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF DANBURY

       V.                                                    AT DANBURY

       BRT PARK RIDGE, LLC, ET AL                            JANUARY 16, 2024

                                                   COMPLAT

       FIRST COUNT: (By ANDREW SWEENEY, as to defendant, BRT PARK RIDGE, LLC)

              1       At all times      material   hereto, the defendant,     BRT   PARK   RIDGE,         LLC
 53
  BS   (hereinafter BRT PROPERTY) was a corporation registered to conduct business in the|State
  Bo
Bes
8      of Connecticut.
 =f
 se
              2       At all times material hereto, the defendant, BRT PROPERTY, its agents,
438
Sas
  $3    apparent agents, servants and/or employees, owned the premises located at 28 Rose Lane,
 28
 ad
 es
 En                                                                                                   |
        Danbury, Connecticut (“the premises”).

              3       At all times material hereto, the defendant,          BRT   PROPERTY,   its agents,

        apparent agents, servants and/or employees, possessed and/or controlled the premises.

              4,      At all times material hereto, the defendant,          BRT PROPERTY,     its ajents,

        apparent   agents,   servants    and/or employees,     was   responsible for the inspection       and

        maintenance of the premises; including the parking lot located at 28 Rose Lane, Danbury,
|
       Connecticut
                                                                                                |
              5.       At all times material hereto, the defendant, BRT PROPERTY, its ag bats,

       apparent agents, servants and/or employees, gave possession to the plaintiff, ANDREW

       SWEENEY, to use the parking lot located at the premises.

              6        At all times material hereto, the defendant,   BRT   PROPERTY,    its agents,

       apparent agents, servants and/or employees, had control over the parking lot located at the

       premises.
 bs=
 Bo
              7.       On   or about February 7, 2022,   at approximately 8:30 A.M., the plaintiff,
Bag
sas
 =f    ANDREW        SWEENEY, was lawfully on the premises when he was suddenly caused tp fall
 Se
 Zo
 38    due to a dangerous and defective condition, thereby causing him to suffer the injuries       and
 as
  7
       losses set forth below.
 An
 eS
 ER
              8        The plaintiff, ANDREW SWEENEY, was caused to fall due to the negligence

       and/or carelessness of the defendant, BRT PROPERTY,            its agents, apparent agents,

       servants and/or employees, in one or more of the following ways:

          (a) In that the defendant failed to properly inspect the premises to ensure that it was
              free of ice, snow, and/or other elements;

          (b) In that the defendant failed to properly maintain the premises to ensure that it was
              free of ice, snow, and/ or other elements;

          (c) In that the defendant failed to properly maintain the gutters to ensure that it       would
not displace water onto the parking lot to prevent the buildup or accumulation of ice,
              snow, and/ or other elements;

        (d) In that the defendant failed to properly maintain the entrance, exits, walkways|and
            parking lot there from on premises as slip resistant to ensure it was free of ice, snow,
            and/ or other elements;

        (e) In that the defendant failed to properly maintain the premises to ensure safe walking
            conditions to be free of ice, snow, and/ or other elements to protect the plaintiff and
            patrons from an unsafe condition;

        (f) In that the defendant failed to take measures to remove the Ice, snow, and/ or dther
              elements when it knew or should have known that said condition(s) existed;
 bsa
 BS     (g)In that the defendant failed to spread sand, salt, and/or other material at the
 ao
            premises, including the parking lot;
Bas