
    Louis Ambrogne et al. v. James Cazanas et al.
    (7759)
    Borden, O’Connell and Barry, Js.
    Argued January 19
    decision released January 31, 1990
    
      
      Ronald J. Habansky, for the appellant (named defendant).
    
      Janet C. Hall, with whom was Frances Erlichson, for the appellees (defendant Reva Goode et al.).
   Per Curiam.

We have fully reviewed the record, transcripts and briefs in this matter. We find nothing that supports the argument that, under the facts of this case, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the named defendant’s cross complaint for his failure to appear and prosecute and for his failure to present evidence after being given an opportunity to do so. Nor do we find support for the argument that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to open the dismissal. Levy v. Levy, 14 Conn. App. 801, 802, 539 A.2d 1042, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 803, 545 A.2d 1100 (1988).

There is no error.  