General

Cheryl A. Ricciardi v. Edward T. Ricciardi

18 Conn. App. 826·Connecticut Appellate Court·1989·CT

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Cheryl A. Ricciardi v. Edward T. Ricciardi (7271) Daly, Foti and Jacobson, Js. Argued May 16 decision released June 8, 1989 Edward T. Ricciardi, pro se, the appellant (defendant). Mark M. Wrenn, with whom, on the brief, was James P. Caulfield, for the appellee (plaintiff). [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify child support payments. The defendant, as the appellant, has the burden of showing that there was error in the judgment from which the appeal was taken. Manzin v. United Bank & Trust Co., 6 Conn. App. 513, 517, 506 A.2d 169 (1986). We have carefully considered the defendant’s claims of error and, after affording those claims the appropriate scope of review, we find that the defendant has not met his burden. There is no error.