Ambrogne v. Cazanas

Connecticut Appellate Court

Ambrogne v. Cazanas

569 A.2d 577, 20 Conn. App. 822, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 42

Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided January 31, 1990·No. 7759·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have fully reviewed the record, transcripts and briefs in this matter. We find nothing that supports the argument that, under the facts of this case, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the named defendant’s cross complaint for his failure to appear and prosecute and for his failure to present evidence after being given an opportunity to do so. Nor do we find support for the argument that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to open the dismissal. Levy v. Levy, 14 Conn. App. 801, 802, 539 A.2d 1042, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 803, 545 A.2d 1100 (1988).

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We have fully reviewed the record, transcripts and briefs in this matter. We find nothing that supports the argument that, under the facts of this case, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the named defendant’s cross complaint for his failure to appear and prosecute and for his failure to present evidence after being given an opportunity to do so. Nor do we find support for the argument that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to open the dismissal. Levy v. Levy, 14 Conn. App. 801, 802, 539 A.2d 1042, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 803, 545 A.2d 1100 (1988).

There is no error.

Ambrogne v. Cazanas, 569 A.2d 577, 20 Conn. App. 822, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 42 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

569 A.2d 577 (Ambrogne v. Cazanas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related