Cokic v. Fiore Powersports, LLC

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion
motions and petitions for certification is the “officially
released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is
to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an
opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and
subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut
Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the
State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced
or distributed without the express written permission of
the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial
Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************

Cokic v. Fiore Powersports, LLC
DEJAN ROBERT COKIC v. FIORE
POWERSPORTS, LLC, ET AL.
(AC 48630)
Alvord, Moll and Suarez, Js.
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment denying his motion
for review of taxation of costs to him and against the defendant. The plaintiff
claimed that the court improperly excluded from its taxation of costs a certain
amount previously ordered taxed to him by the appellate clerk and failed to
tax the costs listed in a bill of costs he filed with the Superior Court. Held:
This court declined to review the plaintiff’s claims as the claims were inad-
equately briefed, the plaintiff having failed to clearly and fully set forth
his arguments, relied on abstract assertions without any analysis, failed to
illustrate how the law he presented applied to the facts of the case, and failed
to offer a standard of review for either of his claims as required by the rule
of practice (§ 67-4) and, with respect to his claim regarding the costs taxed
to him by the appellate clerk, he failed to explain why he could not seek to
enforce the appellate clerk’s taxation of costs.
Argued December 10, 2025—officially released February 3, 2026
Procedural History
Action to recover damages for, inter alia, the defen-
dants’ alleged violation of the Creditors’ Collection Prac-
tices Act, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of Ansonia-Milford and tried to the court, Hon.
Arthur A. Hiller, judge trial referee; judgment for the
defendants; thereafter, the court granted the postjudg-
ment motion for attorney’s fees filed by the defendant
Village Marina, LLC, and the plaintiff and Peter A. Lach-
mann appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal
in part, reversed the judgment in part and remanded the
case for further proceedings; subsequently, the court,
Brown, J., granted the postjudgment motion for attor-
ney’s fees filed by the defendant Village Marina, LLC,
and the plaintiff appealed to this court, which reversed
the judgment and remanded the case with direction to
deny the motion for attorney’s fees filed by the defendant
Village Marina, LLC, to reinstate the taxation of costs in

Cokic v. Fiore Powersports, LLC
favor of the plaintiff and to render judgment thereon;
thereafter, the court, Bellis, J., denied the plaintiff’s
motion for review of taxation of costs, and the plaintiff
appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Peter A. Lachmann, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Opinion
ALVORD, J. The plaintiff, Dejan Robert Cokic, appeals
from the trial court’s denial of his motion for review of
taxation of costs to him and against the defendant Vil-
lage Marina, LLC.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that
the trial court improperly (1) excluded from its taxation
of costs $550 previously ordered taxed to him by the
appellate clerk and (2) failed to tax the costs listed in
his bill of costs filed on October 2, 2024. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
This case has been the subject of two prior appeals;
see Cokic v. Fiore Powersports, LLC, 209 Conn. App.
853, 269 A.3d 214 (2022); Cokic v. Fiore Powersports,
LLC, 222 Conn. App. 216, 304 A.3d 179 (2023); and
only the following procedural history is necessary to
our resolution of this appeal. On November 3, 2023,
after prevailing in his appeal challenging an award of
attorney’s fees, the plaintiff filed with the appellate
clerk a motion for a bill of costs requesting costs in the
amount of $550. The appellate clerk granted the motion
on December 12, 2023, and issued an order providing:
“Pursuant to Practice Book § 71-2, costs in the amount
of $550 ($250 for the entry fee, $200 for brief photo-
duplicating, and $100 for all proceedings) are taxed in
1 The plaintiff brought the underlying action against Fiore Power-
sports, LLC, its principal, Christopher G. Fiore, and Village Marina,
LLC. On June 23, 2025, Village Marina, LLC, filed a notice of intent
not to file a brief and requested that this court affirm the judgment of
the trial court. Fiore and Fiore Powersports, LLC, did not file briefs. On
July 14, 2025, this court ordered that this appeal shall be considered
on the basis of the plaintiff’s brief and appendix, the record as defined
by Practice Book § 60-4, and oral argument by the plaintiff.

Cokic v. Fiore Powersports, LLC
favor of the plaintiff-appellant, as requested in the bill
of costs filed [November 3, 2023].”
In August, 2024, the plaintiff began filing various
motions with the trial court related to the appellate
clerk’s taxation of costs in the amount of $550, including
a motion for judgment and a motion for supplemental
judgment. With respect to the motion for supplemental
judgment, the trial court issued an order stating that
such a motion is not appropriate in nonforeclosure cases
and further stated: “The appellate [clerk] has already
taxed costs [$550] on [December 12, 2023] and no further
action is necessary.”
On October 2, 2024, the plaintiff filed with the trial
court another bill of costs totaling $873.73, to which
the defendant filed an objection on October 8, 2024. On
December 2, 2024, the trial court issued an order stat-
ing: “See Practice Book § 18-5. This is for the clerk to
decide.” In February, 2025, the clerk of the Superior
Court filed a taxation of costs in the amount of $739.11.
This amount did not include the amount requested in
the plaintiff’s October 2, 2024 bill of costs or the $550
taxed by the appellate clerk. The plaintiff then filed with
the trial court a motion for review of taxation of costs,
challenging the failure to include the $550 taxed by the
appellate clerk and the $873.73 he requested on October
2, 2024. The defendant filed an objection, and, on March
11, 2025, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for
review. On March 19, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration, which the court denied. This appeal,
challenging the court’s denial of his motion for review
of the taxation of costs, followed.
Having considered the record and the plaintiff’s brief,
we conclude that we cannot properly review either of
the plaintiff’s claims on appeal because they are inad-
equately briefed, and thus we decline to address them.
“We repeatedly have stated that [w]e are not required

Cokic v. Fiore Powersports, LLC
to review issues that have been improperly presented
to this court through an inadequate brief. . . . Analy-
sis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in
order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief
the issue properly. . . . [When] a claim is asserted in the
statement of issues but thereafter receives only cursory
attention in the brief without substantive discussion or
citation of authorities, it is deemed to be abandoned. .
. . For a reviewing court to judiciously and efficiently .
. . consider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the par-
ties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in
their briefs.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) C. B.
v. S. B., 211 Conn. App. 628, 630, 273 A.3d 271 (2022).
Throughout his appellate brief, the plaintiff fails to
clearly and fully set forth his arguments. He relies on
abstract assertions absent any analysis. Moreover, he
fails to illustrate how the law he presents applies to the
facts of this case. Finally, he fails to offer a standard of
review for either of his claims, as required by Practice
Book § 67-4 (e).2
With respect to the plaintiff’s claim that the trial
court improperly denied his motion for review regard-
ing the $550 in costs taxed to him by the appellate clerk,
the plaintiff’s briefing is inadequate as he has failed to
explain why he cannot seek to enforce the appellate clerk’s
taxation of costs. See Pease v. Charlotte Hungerford Hos-
pital, 325 Conn. 363, 370 n.5, 157 A.3d 1125 (2017) (“At
oral argument before this court, the parties appeared to
agree that the various postjudgment remedies authorized
by chapter 906 of the General Statutes may be used to
enforce an award of costs as well as a monetary judg-
ment. We have no reason to conclude otherwise . . . .”).
2 Practice Book § 67-4 (e) requires that the appellant’s brief include
“[t]he argument, divided under appropriate headings into as many
parts as there are points to be presented, with appropriate references
to the statement of facts or to the page or pages of the transcript or
to the relevant document. The argument on each point shall include
a separate, brief statement of the standard of review the appellant
believes should be applied.”

Cokic v. Fiore Powersports, LLC
Accordingly, we consider the plaintiff’s claims to be
inadequately briefed and, thus, decline to review them.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.