General

JOSEPH LETIZIA v. DANIEL COCOZZA ET AL.

49 Conn. App. 55·Connecticut Appellate Court·1998·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

JOSEPH LETIZIA v. DANIEL COCOZZA ET AL. (AC 17361) O’Connell, C. J., and Ilennessy and Spallone, Js. Argued March 20 officially released June 9, 1998 John A. Brennan, for the appellant (plaintiff). Richard J. Kilcullen, for the appellees (defendants). [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] 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.