Lees Curtain Co. v. Scinto

Connecticut Appellate Court

Lees Curtain Co. v. Scinto

538 A.2d 1063, 13 Conn. App. 822, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 66

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 29, 1988

Docket5443

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 538 A.2d 1063 (Lees Curtain Co. v. Scinto) 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

Lees Curtain Co. v. Scinto, 538 A.2d 1063, 13 Conn. App. 822, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 66 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendants challenge a judgment rendered by the trial court ordering specific performance of a lease provision with an option to purchase. Although the defendant’s list five issues on appeal, this appeal boils down to whether the facts found by the trial court were erroneous. We find no error.

[809]*809The availability of the remedy of specific performance depends upon the evaluation of equitable consideration. Frumento v. Mezzanotte, 192 Conn. 606, 615, 473 A.2d 1193 (1984); Ecos Corporation v. Conlon, 4 Conn. App. 572, 574, 495 A.2d 1111 (1985).

“An appellate court may not retry facts and its duty upon review of such a claim is limited to a determination of whether the trial court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in this respect or otherwise contrary to law. Practice Book § 4061; Damora v. Christ-Janer, 184 Conn. 109, 113, 441 A.2d 61 (1981); Ram Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. A.B.C. Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2 Conn. App. 54, 56, 475 A.2d 341 (1984). It is the province of the trial court to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence. Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment Agency, 170 Conn. 271, 272, 365 A.2d 819 (1976); Essex Savings Bank v. Leeker, 2 Conn. App. 98, 102, 476 A.2d 1071 (1984). This court cannot find facts or draw conclusions from primary facts found, but can only review such findings to determine whether they could legally, logically and reasonably be found and whether the trial court could thereby conclude as it did. Appliances, Inc. v. Yost, 186 Conn. 673, 676-77, 443 A.2d 486 (1982); Hallmark of Farmington v. Roy, 1 Conn. App. 278, 280-81, 471 A.2d 651 (1984).” Nulman’s Appeal from Probate, 13 Conn. App. 811, 812, 537 A.2d 495 (1988).

Our review of the record indicates that the factual findings of the court are fully supported by the evidence and its legal conclusions are legally and logically sound.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendants challenge a judgment rendered by the trial court ordering specific performance of a lease provision with an option to purchase. Although the defendant’s list five issues on appeal, this appeal boils down to whether the facts found by the trial court were erroneous. We find no error.

[809]*809The availability of the remedy of specific performance depends upon the evaluation of equitable consideration. Frumento v. Mezzanotte, 192 Conn. 606, 615, 473 A.2d 1193 (1984); Ecos Corporation v. Conlon, 4 Conn. App. 572, 574, 495 A.2d 1111 (1985).

“An appellate court may not retry facts and its duty upon review of such a claim is limited to a determination of whether the trial court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in this respect or otherwise contrary to law. Practice Book § 4061; Damora v. Christ-Janer, 184 Conn. 109, 113, 441 A.2d 61 (1981); Ram Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. A.B.C. Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2 Conn. App. 54, 56, 475 A.2d 341 (1984). It is the province of the trial court to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence. Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment Agency, 170 Conn. 271, 272, 365 A.2d 819 (1976); Essex Savings Bank v. Leeker, 2 Conn. App. 98, 102, 476 A.2d 1071 (1984). This court cannot find facts or draw conclusions from primary facts found, but can only review such findings to determine whether they could legally, logically and reasonably be found and whether the trial court could thereby conclude as it did. Appliances, Inc. v. Yost, 186 Conn. 673, 676-77, 443 A.2d 486 (1982); Hallmark of Farmington v. Roy, 1 Conn. App. 278, 280-81, 471 A.2d 651 (1984).” Nulman’s Appeal from Probate, 13 Conn. App. 811, 812, 537 A.2d 495 (1988).

Our review of the record indicates that the factual findings of the court are fully supported by the evidence and its legal conclusions are legally and logically sound.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 A.2d 1063, 13 Conn. App. 822, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lees-curtain-co-v-scinto-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack