Case Name: RICHARD GATES v. ESLA EUGENE GATES ET AL.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 2009-06-23
Citations: 115 Conn. App. 293
Docket Number: AC 30249
Parties: RICHARD GATES v. ESLA EUGENE GATES ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
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:
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.