Amo v. Pincince
Amo v. Pincince
Opinion of the Court
Opinion
The plaintiff, Charles Amo, appeals from the decision
The plaintiff has filed with this court, purportedly pursuant to Practice Book § 64-1, a transcript of the trial court’s oral decision signed by the court. The transcript, however, fails to disclose the reasons for the court’s decision to open the judgment, and the plaintiff failed to file a motion for articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5.
Because the plaintiff failed to provide us with an adequate record, we decline to review his claim. “The duty to provide this court with a record adequate for review rests with the appellant. Practice Book § 60-5; Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust v. AECO Elevator Co., 48 Conn. App. 605, 607, 710 A.2d 190 (1998).” State v. Combs, 51 Conn. App. 700, 701, 725 A.2d 349 (1999).
The trial court’s granting of the defendants’ motion to open is affirmed.
Ordinarily, the granting of a motion to open a prior judgment does not constitute a final judgment and, therefore, is not immediately appealable. State v. Phillips, 166 Conn. 642, 646, 353 A.2d 706 (1974). Where, however, the appellant challenges the power of the trial court to open the judgment, an immediate appeal lies. Cassella v. Kleffke, 38 Conn. App. 340, 344, 660 A.2d 378, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 905, 665 A.2d 899 (1995).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- CHARLES AMO v. ROBERT J. PINCINCE
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published