Case Name: Marion Perosino, Conservatrix (Estate of Pauline Bolot) v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital et al.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1989-05-25
Citations: 18 Conn. App. 824
Docket Number: 7060
Parties: Marion Perosino, Conservatrix (Estate of Pauline Bolot) v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 824–824

Head Matter:
Marion Perosino, Conservatrix (Estate of Pauline Bolot) v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital et al.
(7060)
Dupont, C. J., Stoughton and Norcott, Js.
Argued May 9
decision released May 25, 1989
Richard D. Casella, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Jack G. Steigelfest, with whom, on the brief, were Roland F. Young III and Constance L. Epstein, for the appellee (named defendant).
Vincent M. DeAngelo, with whom were Louis B. Blumenfeld and Karen Jansen Casey, for the appellee (defendant John L. Buckley).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this suit for medical malpractice, the plaintiff conservatrix claims that the trial court erred in denying her motion for permission to amend her complaint.
After giving the plaintiffs claims the appropriate standard of review, we find that the plaintiff has failed to supply this court with an adequate record upon which to review the basis for the trial court's decision. Furthermore, it is impossible for us to determine the merits of the plaintiff's claims of error because of the failure of the plaintiff's brief to conform to the requirements of Practice Book § 4065.
There is no error.
Despite the plaintiffs claim to the contrary, the proposed amendment related solely to the named defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs claim as to the defendant John L. Buckley is without merit.