Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STEPHEN CESLIK v. LAUREN WINER (AC 14367)
Lavery, C. J., and Foti and Daly, Js. Argued January 22--officially released April 10, 2001 Counsel

Stephen Ceslik, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff). H. Jeffrey Beck, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

DALY, J. The plaintiff, Stephen Ceslik, appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) ruled on his substituted motion for new trial without holding a hearing and (2) denied his motion for a new trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of this appeal. The plaintiff brought an action to recover on a promissory note, which was heard by an attorney trial referee. The attorney trial referee recommended that the court render judgment in favor of the defendant. The court rendered

judgment in accordance with the referee's recommendation, and the plaintiff filed both a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and an appeal of the trial court's decision. This court disposed of the direct appeal on April 18, 1995. Ceslik v. Winer, 37 Conn. App. 919, 655 A.2d 1176, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 909, 659 A.2d 1207 (1995). The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial without conducting a hearing or setting forth findings of fact, conclusions of law or an explanation of its decision. The plaintiff then filed the present appeal, challenging the denial of his motion for a new trial. We must first address the threshold question of whether the appeal is reviewable. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial without issuing a written memorandum of decision or making any findings of fact on the record. As a result, the record on appeal does not contain a written memorandum of decision. This court has consistently adhered to the rule of Practice Book

Download Ceslik v.Winer.pdf

Connecticut Law