Opinion
No. 34465.
2013-04-9
Thomas F. DeSTEPH v. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING.
Appeal from the decision by the defendant, ordering, inter alia, that the plaintiff cease and desist from issuing certain securities in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain and tried to the court, Cohan, J. ; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Thomas F. DeSteph, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff). Patrick T. Ring, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was George Jepsen, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).
Appeal from the decision by the defendant, ordering, inter alia, that the plaintiff cease and desist from issuing certain securities in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain and tried to the court, Cohan, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court.
Thomas F. DeSteph, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff). Patrick T. Ring, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was George Jepsen, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).
GRUENDEL, ALVORD and FLYNN, Js.
Prior report: Conn.Super., 2012 WL 953741. PER CURIAM.
In this case, the plaintiff, Thomas F. DeSteph, filed an appeal from the final decision of the defendant, Howard F. Pitkin, commissioner of the department of banking, which made permanent a cease and desist order issued to the plaintiff relating to the sale of securities in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, General Statutes § 36b–2 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder, and imposed a fine of $30,000 for three violations of it. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the appeal.
Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment should be affirmed. On the facts of this case, the issues properly were resolved in the complete and well reasoned memorandum of decision by the trial court, Cohn, J. See DeSteph v. Dept. of Banking, 52 Conn.Supp. 550, ––– A.3d –––– (2012). We therefore adopt it as the proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law, as it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Nestico v. Weyman, 140 Conn.App. 499, 500, 59 A.3d 337 (2013).
The judgment is affirmed.