Thoracic & Cardiovascular Associates of New Haven, P.C. v. Sartell

Connecticut Appellate Court

Thoracic & Cardiovascular Associates of New Haven, P.C. v. Sartell

641 A.2d 831, 34 Conn. App. 909, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 159

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMay 17, 1994

Docket12804

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 641 A.2d 831 (Thoracic & Cardiovascular Associates of New Haven, P.C. v. Sartell) 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

Thoracic & Cardiovascular Associates of New Haven, P.C. v. Sartell, 641 A.2d 831, 34 Conn. App. 909, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 159 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the trial court, following a court trial, rendered in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff has failed to present either a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the court, stating its decision on the issues in the case and, if there were factual findings, the factual basis for its decision. The plaintiff, as appellant, has the responsibility to provide this court with an adequate record for review. Practice Book § 4061; DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671, 681, 458 A.2d 362 (1983); Holmes v. Holmes, 32 Conn. App. 317, 319, 629 A.2d 1137, cert. denied, 228 Conn. 902, 634 A.2d 295 (1993); Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. Linsky, 32 Conn. App. 13, 15, 627 A.2d 954 (1993); Augeri v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 24 Conn. App. 172, 178, 586 A.2d 635, cert. denied, 218 Conn. 904, 588 A.2d 1383 (1991). “This court recently noted that we cannot render a decision without first having ‘specific findings of fact to determine the basis of the court’s ruling.’ State v. Rios, 30 Conn. App. 712, 715, [910]*910622 A.2d 618 (1993).” Gelormino v. Blaustein, 31 Conn. App. 750, 751, 626 A.2d 1325 (1993). We have consistently stated that it is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review and we see no reason to depart from that rule.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the trial court, following a court trial, rendered in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff has failed to present either a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the court, stating its decision on the issues in the case and, if there were factual findings, the factual basis for its decision. The plaintiff, as appellant, has the responsibility to provide this court with an adequate record for review. Practice Book § 4061; DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671, 681, 458 A.2d 362 (1983); Holmes v. Holmes, 32 Conn. App. 317, 319, 629 A.2d 1137, cert. denied, 228 Conn. 902, 634 A.2d 295 (1993); Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. Linsky, 32 Conn. App. 13, 15, 627 A.2d 954 (1993); Augeri v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 24 Conn. App. 172, 178, 586 A.2d 635, cert. denied, 218 Conn. 904, 588 A.2d 1383 (1991). “This court recently noted that we cannot render a decision without first having ‘specific findings of fact to determine the basis of the court’s ruling.’ State v. Rios, 30 Conn. App. 712, 715, [910]*910622 A.2d 618 (1993).” Gelormino v. Blaustein, 31 Conn. App. 750, 751, 626 A.2d 1325 (1993). We have consistently stated that it is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review and we see no reason to depart from that rule.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 A.2d 831, 34 Conn. App. 909, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thoracic-cardiovascular-associates-of-new-haven-pc-v-sartell-connappct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack