Case ID: conn-app_115/html/0293-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RICHARD GATES v. ESLA EUGENE GATES ET AL.
    (AC 30249)
    Flynn, C. J., and Lavine and Hennessy, Js.
    Argued April 21
    officially released June 23, 2009
    
      
      Robert H. Boynton, for the appellant (plaintiff).
    
      Gavan F. Meehan, with whom, on the brief, was Steven D. Ecker, for the appellees (defendants).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Richard Gates, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the judgment of the Probate Court. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it was without subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal due to the plaintiffs failure to file his complaint with the Superior Court within thirty days of the mailing of the Probate Court’s memorandum of decision, as required by General Statutes § 45a-186 (a).

After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the court’s memorandum of decision resolves properly the issue raised in this appeal, we adopt the court’s concise and well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Gates v. Gates, 51 Conn. Sup. 148, 975 A.2d 147 (2008). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Socha v. Bordeau, 289 Conn. 358, 362, 956 A.2d 1174 (2008).

The judgment is affirmed.