Letizia v. Cocozza

Connecticut Appellate Court

Letizia v. Cocozza

710 A.2d 829, 49 Conn. App. 55, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 261

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 9, 1998

DocketAC 17361

StatusPublished

This text of 710 A.2d 829 (Letizia v. Cocozza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Letizia v. Cocozza, 710 A.2d 829, 49 Conn. App. 55, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 261 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action on a promissory note in which the plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendants. “It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review . . . .” Practice Book § 4061, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 60-5. In this case, the record is inadequate for review because we have not been provided with either a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the trial court. See Practice Book § 4059, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 64-1. Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiffs claim is not reviewable. See Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Saucier, 48 Conn. App. 709, 709 A.2d 610 (1998); Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust v. AECO Elevator Co., 48 Conn. App. 605, 710 A.2d 190 (1998).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action on a promissory note in which the plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendants. “It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review . . . .” Practice Book § 4061, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 60-5. In this case, the record is inadequate for review because we have not been provided with either a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the trial court. See Practice Book § 4059, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 64-1. Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiffs claim is not reviewable. See Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Saucier, 48 Conn. App. 709, 709 A.2d 610 (1998); Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust v. AECO Elevator Co., 48 Conn. App. 605, 710 A.2d 190 (1998).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 A.2d 829, 49 Conn. App. 55, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/letizia-v-cocozza-connappct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack