Letizia v. Cocozza

710 A.2d 829, 49 Conn. App. 55, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 261
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided June 9, 1998·No. AC 17361·Published

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

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

710 A.2d 829 (Letizia v. Cocozza) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chase Manhattan Bank v. AECO Elevator Co.
710 A.2d 190 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Saucier
709 A.2d 610 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)