Zbigniew S. Rozbicki v. Eugene M. Gisselbrecht et al. (2013)

RULING RE PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE PURSUANT TO PRACTICE BOOK § 64–1 (# 218)

In this case the plaintiff filed a notice, requesting that the court sign a transcript of a proceeding that took place at short calendar on May 28, 2013.   The plaintiff cites, in particular, to Practice Book § 64–1 in support of his request.   The defendant objects to the request.

Practice Book § 64–1 has no application in this case because on May 30, 2013, the court issued a memorandum of decision (# 204.10) relative to the issues that were before the court on May 28, 2013.  “The plaintiffs filed a notice under Practice Book § 64–1, which, by its terms, applies in circumstances in which the trial court has failed to file a memorandum of decision, not in circumstances in which a party is dissatisfied with the content of a memorandum of decision.  Practice Book § 64–1(b) unambiguously affords an appellant the right to file a notice with the appellate clerk if the trial judge fails to file a memorandum of decision or sign a transcript of the oral decision in a case for which the judge is obligated to do so under Practice Book § 64–1(a).   The rule further provides in relevant part that the notice shall specify the trial judge involved and the date of the ruling for which no memorandum of decision was filed ․ Practice Book § 64–1(b).”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Murphy v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Stamford, 86 Conn.App. 147, 158, 860 A.2d 764 (2004).

Since the court filed a memorandum of decision, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the court to sign a transcript of the proceedings of May 28, 2013.

So ordered.

John A. Danaher, III, J.

Danaher, John A., J.