Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)

Citation
Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
Parent Document
Food Studio, Inc. v. Fabiola's, 56 Conn. App. 858 (2000)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2000-03-14

Other Sections in This Document (30)

Full Text

869 chars
We note first that while the plaintiff posits in this claim that the court’s finding regarding equipment lease rental payments was improper, the plaintiff has failed to brief this claim adequately. “In order for this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) New London Federal Savings Bank v. Tucciarone, 48 Conn. App. 89, 100, 709 A.2d 14 (1998). In its brief, the plaintiff provides *864no analysis of this part of its claim. “[Assignments of error which are merely mentioned but not briefed beyond a statement of the claim will be deemed abandoned and will not be reviewed by this court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 101. We, therefore, will not review this part of the claim.