Natarajan v. Natarajan

14 Citing cases

  1. Am. Express Bank, FSB v. Rutkowski

    166 A.3d 908 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn.App. 381, 394 n.8, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008). Accordingly, we decline to decide any questions under Utah law or federal law.

  2. Natarajan v. Natarajan

    287 Conn. 924 (Conn. 2008)   Cited 9 times

    Decided June 17, 2008 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 107 Conn. App. 381 (AC 28243), is denied. Jodi Zils Gagne, in support of the petition.

  3. In re Olivia W.

    223 Conn. App. 173 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    The court rejected this argument after the father had raised it at the evidentiary hearing, reasoning that the argument did not present "any impediment to our proceeding on the [emergency] motion." The court maintained the discretion to allow testimony from the undisclosed witnesses; see Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn. App. 381, 389-90, 945 A.2d 540 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony of witness who had not been disclosed prior to trial), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008)

  4. Customers Bank v. Tomonto Indus., LLC

    156 Conn. App. 441 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    Section 10–5 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence “permits the contents of admissible, voluminous documents to be admitted in the form of a summary....” (Emphasis added.) Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn.App. 381, 391, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008). For the purpose of this appeal, we assume without deciding that the underlying documents used to compute exhibit 10 were “voluminous.” See Conn.Code Evid. § 10–5.

  5. Law Offices of Walsh v. Natarajan

    124 Conn. App. 860 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    The court, in the dissolution case, found Gaetano's testimony credible, and this court, on appeal, affirmed the judgment of the court. Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn. App. 381, 383, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008). The defendant claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) rejected her counterclaim and (2) calculated the amount owing to the plaintiff under the $12,000 flat fee agreement.

  6. Ferraro v. Ferraro

    No. HHBFA144035087 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 2017)

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn.App. 381, 392-93, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008). In particular the court is concerned about the plaintiff's prospect for employability.

  7. Gonzalez v. Gonzalez

    No. HHBFA166033748S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 20, 2017)

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn.App. 381, 392-93, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008). With regard to the issue of custody, the following quotation from the case of Raymond v. Raymond, 165 Conn. 735, 741, 345 A.2d 48 (1974) sets forth the rule of law upon the issue of custody: " Where custody and visitation rights have been affected, a court has the power and the duty to safeguard those rights while recognizing that such interests are subordinate to the welfare of the children.

  8. Gavlick v. Gavlick

    No. FSTFA156024538S (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 23, 2016)

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn.App. 381, 392-93, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008). Accordingly the court makes the following:

  9. Rao v. Rao

    No. FSTFA156025167S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jun. 1, 2016)

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn.App. 381, 392-93, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008). Similarly, " [§ ]46b-82 governs awards of alimony.

  10. Stanley v. Wetmore

    No. KNOFA156100801S (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 29, 2016)

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn.App. 381, 392-93, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008). Similarly, " [§ ]46b-82 governs awards of alimony.