
    Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Sherman et al. v. Harold Bemis
    (2377)
    Dannehy, C.P.J., Hull and Borden, Js.
    Argued April 12
    decision released July 10, 1984
    
      AlanM. Kosloff, with whom, on the brief, were Austin K. Wolf and David L. Grogins, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
    
      Warren P. Joblin, with whom, on the brief, was Samuel J. Henderson, for the appellee (defendant).
   Per Curiam.

At oral argument, counsel for the plaintiffs, who filed the appeal in this case, candidly admitted to the court that the legal claims they advance here were never presented to the trial court; and that the trial court decided the case on the basis of the claims, theories and evidence presented to it by them. Furthermore, our examination of the record indicates that the claims presented to us in the plaintiffs’ brief and argument were totally unrelated to those presented in their preliminary statement of issues on appeal under Practice Book § 3012 (a). Under these circumstances we decline to consider the plaintiffs’ claims.

There is no error. 
      
       This appeal, originally filed in the Supreme Court, was transferred to this court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 2 (c).
     