Halepas v. Malerba

Connecticut Appellate Court

Halepas v. Malerba

488 A.2d 847, 3 Conn. App. 403, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 879

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 19, 1985

Docket2776; 2777

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 488 A.2d 847 (Halepas v. Malerba) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Halepas v. Malerba, 488 A.2d 847, 3 Conn. App. 403, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 879 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in the first case, Haritsa X. Halepas, brought an action for rent for premises owned by Halepas and occupied by the defendant, G. William Malerba. In a second action,¹ Malerba’s Silver City Tire Company, Inc., brought suit against Haritsa X. and Peter Halepas, for damages and unjust enrichment due to substantial improvements made by it to [404]*404the premises. The trial court rendered judgment for Halepas in both actions, and Malerba and Malerba’s Silver City Tire Co. appealed.²

We have carefully reviewed the claims of error, which primarily attack the factual findings of the trial court, and find them to be without merit. This court does not, and will not, retry facts found by the trial court that are amply supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous. See Hobby v. Feldman, 2 Conn. App. 696, 697, 482 A.2d 1226 (1984).

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in the first case, Haritsa X. Halepas, brought an action for rent for premises owned by Halepas and occupied by the defendant, G. William Malerba. In a second action,¹ Malerba’s Silver City Tire Company, Inc., brought suit against Haritsa X. and Peter Halepas, for damages and unjust enrichment due to substantial improvements made by it to [404]*404the premises. The trial court rendered judgment for Halepas in both actions, and Malerba and Malerba’s Silver City Tire Co. appealed.²

We have carefully reviewed the claims of error, which primarily attack the factual findings of the trial court, and find them to be without merit. This court does not, and will not, retry facts found by the trial court that are amply supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous. See Hobby v. Feldman, 2 Conn. App. 696, 697, 482 A.2d 1226 (1984).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 A.2d 847, 3 Conn. App. 403, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halepas-v-malerba-connappct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack