Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cottiero v. Ifkovic

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided August 30, 1994No. 12997Published

1DissentLavery, J.

I respectfully dissent from part I of the majority’s opinion because the record is adequate for our review and the facts require equitable subrogation.

I

The majority reviews the trial court’s memorandum of decision and, not finding the words “equitable subrogation,” concludes (1) that the trial court failed to comply with Practice Book § 4059, (2) that Chemical Bank (defendant) failed to comply with Practice Book § 4061, and (3) that we cannot review the defendant’s claim for equitable subrogation for lack of an adequate record. The majority correctly points out that § 4059 requires that the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. F. B. Fountain Co. v. SteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
  2. Grant Thornton v. Syracuse Savings BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
  3. Connecticut National Bank v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
  4. Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
  5. Lomas & Nettleton Co. v. IsacsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API