Clark v. Clark

665 A.2d 179, 39 Conn. App. 901, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 440
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided October 10, 1995·No. 14388·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the trial court rendered pursuant to a pendente lite order.

The plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the pendente lite order in the absence of notice, but the record lacks any facts or findings to support this contention. The plaintiff has failed to present a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the court explaining the factual basis for its decision. We have consistently stated that it is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review. Practice Book § 4061; Gelormino v. Blaustein, 31 Conn. App. 750, 751, 626 A.2d 1325 (1993); State v. Rios, 30 Conn. App. 712, 715, 622 A.2d 618 (1993). We see no reason to depart from this rule.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Clark v. Clark, 665 A.2d 179, 39 Conn. App. 901, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 440 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

665 A.2d 179 (Clark v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Rios
622 A.2d 618 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1993)
Gelormino v. Blaustein
626 A.2d 1325 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1993)