Shritah v. Stop & Shop Cos.

Decision Date20 July 1999
Docket Number(AC 18181)
Citation734 A.2d 1035,54 Conn. App. 273
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
PartiesREKAN SHRITAH v. STOP AND SHOP COMPANIES, INC.

O'Connell, C. J., and Landau and Sullivan, Js.

Arthur S. Wells filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).

Dion W. Moore and Suzannah K. Nigro filed a brief for the appellee (named defendant).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Rekan Shritah, appeals from the judgment for the defendants after the trial court granted the named defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Practice Book § 15-8. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The transcript shows that the underlying action for personal injuries arises out of a slip and fall that occurred on June 28, 1993, at a store located in Fairfield and owned by the named defendant, Stop and Shop Companies, Inc. (Stop & Shop). At trial, testimony was introduced from two witnesses, the plaintiff and a Stop & Shop employee. The plaintiff testified that he entered the store late in the evening and, after he selected some items, he slipped and fell. The plaintiff testified that he neither saw anything on the floor before he fell, nor did he know what caused him to fall. He testified that after he fell, he saw some fruit on the floor, but was unable to state that it was the fruit that actually caused his fall.

The second witness, Henry Niestemski, a Stop & Shop employee, was in charge of the night maintenance crew and responsible for overseeing the store from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Niestemski testified that he remembered the incident, although he did not remember the plaintiff specifically. Moreover, he testified that he did not know whether the outside maintenance crew had begun to clean and that he did not recall seeing any fruit on the floor. The plaintiff subsequently rested his case, and Stop & Shop made a motion for a judgment of dismissal that the trial court granted.

The record before us does not contain either a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision, signed by the trial court, stating its reason for granting the motion to dismiss. Further, the plaintiff never sought to have the trial court articulate the basis upon which it granted the motion to dismiss. "The duty to provide [the Appellate Court] with a record adequate for review rests with the appellant." Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust v. AECO Elevator Co., 48 Conn. App. 605, 607, 710 A.2d 190 (1998); see Practice Book § 61-10.

This court has declined to review claims where the appellant has failed to provide the court with an adequate record for review. Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust v. AECO Elevator Co., supra, 48 Conn. App. 609; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • McKiernan v. Green, No. CV-02-0080077S (CT 10/8/2004)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 8 Octubre 2004
    ...Furthermore, the violation of the statute or regulation must be a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Shritah v. Stop & Shop Cos., 54 Conn.App. 273, 275, 734 A.2d 1035 (1999). The McKiernans rely on subsections (1), (11) and (13) of General Statutes §20-320 which provide as The Depar......
  • Pickering v. Aspen Dental Management, 27645.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 24 Abril 2007
    ...the defendant breached a duty owed to her and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. Shritah v. Stop & Shop Cos., 54 Conn.App. 273, 275, 734 A.2d 1035 (1999). "The doctrine of negligence per se serves to superimpose a legislatively prescribed standard of care on the gene......
  • Coastline Terminals of Connecticut v. Usx Corp., 3:00CV1698(WWE).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • 11 Julio 2001
    ...must prove duty, breach, proximate cause and damages in order to establish a negligence per se action. Shritah v. Stop & Shop Cos., Inc., 54 Conn.App. 273, 275, 734 A.2d 1035 (1999). Thus, Coastline's complaint must either allege that it was owed a duty by U.S. Steel, the predecessor to USX......
  • Winn v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, No. CV 05-4015021S (CT 4/12/2006), CV 05-4015021S
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 12 Abril 2006
    ...of the following elements: duty, breach, proximate cause and damages." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Shritah v. Stop & Shop Cos., 54 Conn.App. 273, 275, 734 A.2d 1035 (1999). In paragraph nineteen of count three, the plaintiff alleges, "Defendants Ameriquest and Argent doing business ......
1 books & journal articles
  • 1999 Connecticut Appellate Review
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 74, 1999
    • Invalid date
    ...State v. Combs, 51 Conn. App. 700, 701, 725 A.2d 347 (1999) (inadequate record); Shritah v. Stop & Shop Cos., 54 Conn. App. 273, 275, 734 A.2d 1035 (1999) (same); Federal Bank FSB v. Dwyer, 54 Conn. App. 276, 277, 734 A.2d 603 (1999) (same); Benedetto v. Benedetto, 55 Conn. App. 350, 355 n.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT