Opinion
(AC 17361)
Argued March 20, 1998
Officially released June 9, 1998
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Action to recover on a promissory note executed by the defendants, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury and tried to the court, Mihalakos, J.; judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
John A. Brennan, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Richard J. Kilcullen, for the appellees (defendants).
OPINION
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 plaintiff's claim is not reviewable. See Chase Manhattan Bank v. AECO Elevator Co., 48 Conn. App. 605, ___ A.2d ___ (1998); Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Saucier, 48 Conn. App. 709, ___ A.2d ___ (1998).