Pamela Teperino v. Gail McCarthy & a.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Pamela Teperino v. Gail McCarthy & a.

DecidedFebruary 1, 2023

Docket2022-0319

StatusUnpublished

This text of Pamela Teperino v. Gail McCarthy & a. (Pamela Teperino v. Gail McCarthy & a.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pamela Teperino v. Gail McCarthy & a., (N.H. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0319, Pamela Teperino v. Gail McCarthy & a., the court on February 1, 2023, issued the following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the limited record submitted on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The plaintiff, Pamela Teperino, appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Forrest, J.) dismissing her complaint brought against the defendants, Gail and James McCarthy, under RSA chapter 540-A. We affirm.

The plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by dismissing her complaint and ruling that she failed to meet her burden of proving that the defendant had engaged in the prohibited practices that she alleged. We are unable to review this argument substantively because the plaintiff has not provided a transcript of the hearing in the trial court. As the appealing party, the plaintiff had the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to decide her issues on appeal. See Sup. Ct. R. 13; Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (explaining that the rules of appellate practice are not relaxed for self-represented litigants). Because the plaintiff has not provided us with a copy of the hearing transcript, we must assume that the evidence at the hearing supported the trial court’s decision. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997). We review the trial court’s order for errors of law only, and find none.

The plaintiff has submitted on appeal a letter from the Rindge Fire Department that bears the same date as the trial court order on appeal (May 27, 2022) and July 2022 records from the Rindge Police Department. Our decision today is without prejudice to the plaintiff seeking whatever relief may be available in the trial court based upon those documents.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk

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

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0319, Pamela Teperino v. Gail McCarthy & a., the court on February 1, 2023, issued the following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the limited record submitted on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The plaintiff, Pamela Teperino, appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Forrest, J.) dismissing her complaint brought against the defendants, Gail and James McCarthy, under RSA chapter 540-A. We affirm.

The plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by dismissing her complaint and ruling that she failed to meet her burden of proving that the defendant had engaged in the prohibited practices that she alleged. We are unable to review this argument substantively because the plaintiff has not provided a transcript of the hearing in the trial court. As the appealing party, the plaintiff had the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to decide her issues on appeal. See Sup. Ct. R. 13; Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (explaining that the rules of appellate practice are not relaxed for self-represented litigants). Because the plaintiff has not provided us with a copy of the hearing transcript, we must assume that the evidence at the hearing supported the trial court’s decision. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997). We review the trial court’s order for errors of law only, and find none.

The plaintiff has submitted on appeal a letter from the Rindge Fire Department that bears the same date as the trial court order on appeal (May 27, 2022) and July 2022 records from the Rindge Police Department. Our decision today is without prejudice to the plaintiff seeking whatever relief may be available in the trial court based upon those documents.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pamela Teperino v. Gail McCarthy & a., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pamela-teperino-v-gail-mccarthy-a-nh-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack