Thus, “absent a showing that the court has intentionally falsified the record,” the court's “determination is conclusive.” Id. at 172, quoting Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 685, 689, 554 N.E.2d 1227 (1990). The only evidence the defendant proffers in support of his argument is an affidavit from trial counsel expressing her intentions and an ambiguous statement in the transcript.

Further, '[w]hen a dispute respecting the record is submitted to the . . . court, its determination is conclusive, absent a showing that the . . . court has intentionally falsified the record.' Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 689 (1990), quoting from Letch v. Daniels, 401 Mass. 65, 67-69 & n.3 (1987). Winn made no further attempt to amend or modify the record.

A judge’s determination of an issue on the docket is conclusive "absent a showing that the court has intentionally falsified the record." Zabin v. Picciotto, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 141, 172, 896 N.E.2d 937 (2008); quoting Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 689, 554 N.E.2d 1227 (1990). The mother provides no reason, and we see no reason, to question these docket entries.

A judge's determination of an issue on the docket is conclusive “absent a showing that the court has intentionally falsified the record.” Zabin v. Picciotto, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 141, 172 (2008), quoting Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 689 (1990). The mother provides no reason, and we see no reason, to question these docket entries.

If, on the other hand, the plaintiff does not allege compliance with a condition precedent, the defendant is "under no obligation to deny the nonexistence averment ‘specifically and with particularity.’ " Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 686 n.3 (1990), quoting Vasys, 387 Mass. at 55. For this reason, the defendant retains the right to "raise the issue [of noncompliance] at any time before or during trial."

The "burden is on the appellant to provide [the appellate] court with an appendix sufficient to support its points on appeal." Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 688 (1990). See Shawmut Community Bank, N.A. v. Zagami, 411 Mass. 807, 811 (1992).

See Commonwealth v. Harris, 376 Mass. 74, 77 (1978) (“[I]f the proceedings at trial can be sufficiently reconstructed and presented to the appellate court, a new trial is not constitutionally required when the transcript is not available through no fault of the parties”); Commonwealth v. Flint, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 794, 800–802 (2012). See also Zabin v. Picciotto, 73 Mass.App.Ct. 141, 172 (2008), quoting from Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 685, 689 (1990) (where “a dispute respecting the record is submitted to the ... court, its determination is conclusive, absent a showing that the court has intentionally falsified the record”). The judge approved a reconstructed record, and the defendant does not take particular issue with its contents.

However, "[w]hen a dispute respecting the record is submitted to the . . . court, its determination is conclusive, absent a showing that the court has intentionally falsified the record." Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 689 (1990), quoting from Letch v. Daniels, 401 Mass. 65, 67-69 n. 3 (1987). To the extent that the judge's reconstruction of the expert's testimony differs from the expert's affidavit describing his proposed trial testimony, we note simply that it is not unusual for trial testimony to vary from what a witness or the parties may have anticipated; we do not view any such variance to stand as evidence that the testimony was reconstructed falsely.

The judge's discretionary decision in this respect "is conclusive . . . absent a showing that the . . . court has intentionally falsified the record." Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 689 (1990), quoting from Letch v. Daniels, 401 Mass. 65, 67-68 n. 3 (1987). No such showing was attempted here.

It was the appellant's burden to provide us with an adequate record demonstrating that the issues had been preserved. Burda v. Spencer, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 688 (1990). 2.