omitted.) State v. Cole, 50 Conn. App. 312, 330-31, 718 A.2d 457 (1998), aff'd, 254 Conn. 88, 755 A.2d 202 (2000). In a civil case, the appellant has the burden of establishing the specific harmfulness of the error by demonstrating the likelihood that the evidentiary ruling had affected the result. Constantine v. Schneider, 49 Conn. App. 378, 393, 715 A.2d 772 (1998). We conclude that the introduction of hearsay during Lenes’ testimony was harmless. The court, in its memorandum of decision, did not rely on any evidence introduced during Lenes’ testimony that had not been introduced by either the plaintiff or Reddick, and the defendant does not explain how Lenes’ testimony affected the court’s decision. See Sokolowski v. Medi Mart, Inc., 24 Conn. App. 276, 282, 587 A.2d 1056 (1991) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that the court
holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court holding absence of record harmless when hearing was not evidentiary and appellant failed to argue harm holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm holding that error harmless because appellant failed to identify any specific harm from improper introduction of evidence