Puglio v. Paniccia

548 A.2d 1350, 16 Conn. App. 807, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 427, 1988 WL 112673
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided October 11, 1988·No. 6408·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants claim that the court erred in overruling objections to testimony and in denying their motion for judgment for failure of the plaintiff to produce expert testimony. We find no error.

When error is claimed in rulings such as those complained of, the brief or appendix must include the pertinent motion, if it does not appear in the printed record; the question; the objection and the ground on which it was based; the ground on which the evidence was claimed to be admissible; the answer, if any; the ruling; and any exception. Practice Book § 4065 (d) (3). This rule has not been complied with and we will not consider the claims asserted. Henry v. Klein, 15 Conn. App. 496, 500, 545 A.2d 575 (1988).

There is no error.

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

Puglio v. Paniccia, 548 A.2d 1350, 16 Conn. App. 807, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 427, 1988 WL 112673 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

548 A.2d 1350 (Puglio v. Paniccia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henry v. Klein
545 A.2d 575 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)