Matthews and Connell, P.C. v. Twin Towers Associates

Connecticut Appellate Court

Matthews and Connell, P.C. v. Twin Towers Associates

534 A.2d 628, 13 Conn. App. 804, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 1163

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedDecember 13, 1987

Docket(4707)

StatusPublished

This text of 534 A.2d 628 (Matthews and Connell, P.C. v. Twin Towers Associates) 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

Matthews and Connell, P.C. v. Twin Towers Associates, 534 A.2d 628, 13 Conn. App. 804, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 1163 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An arbitration proceeding was initiated by the defendant DeMatteo Construction Company, in the name of the defendant Twin Towers Associates, against the plaintiff Matthews and Connell, P.C., the architect for a construction project involving the parties. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted the present action, seeking to enjoin that arbitration proceeding. The trial court permanently enjoined the arbitration. This appeal followed. We find no error.

In their several claims of error, the defendants raise what appear to be complex questions of law. Our thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties, however, reveals that the defendants only seek to retry this case on appeal. This we will not do. Griffiths v. Griffiths, 12 Conn. App. 807, 531 A.2d 1203 (1987) (per curiam).

The findings and conclusions of the trial court must be affirmed as they are supported by the evidence. Lawlor v. Searles, 12 Conn. App. 511, 513, 531 A.2d 607 (1987) (per curiam).

There is no error.

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