Sparks v. Koshefsky

Connecticut Appellate Court

Sparks v. Koshefsky

598 A.2d 146, 26 Conn. App. 906, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 375

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedOctober 22, 1991

Docket9706

StatusPublished

This text of 598 A.2d 146 (Sparks v. Koshefsky) 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

Sparks v. Koshefsky, 598 A.2d 146, 26 Conn. App. 906, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 375 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The named defendant, Gertrude Koshefsky,¹ appeals from a decision of the trial court declaring title to the real estate at issue to be in the plaintiff, Catherine T. Sparks.

While much of the trial testimony was disputed, it is axiomatic that the credibility of witnesses, the finding of facts, and the drawing of inferences are all within the trier’s province. “It is futile to assign error involving the weight of testimony or the credibility of witnesses.” Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App. 275, 293, 494 A.2d 576 (1985), appeal dismissed, 202 Conn. 221, 520 A.2d 225 (1987); Piantedosi v. Floridia, 186 Conn. 275, 277, 440 A.2d 977 (1982). This court cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses. Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 263, 413 A.2d 854 (1979); State v. Speers, 17 Conn. App. 587, 592, 554 [907]*907A.2d 769, cert. denied, 211 Conn. 808, 559 A.2d 1142, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851, 110 S. Ct. 150, 107 L. Ed. 2d 108, cert. denied sub nom. George v. Connecticut, 493 U.S. 893, 110 S. Ct. 241, 107 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1989). The named defendant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that its decision was otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061; see U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. K. J. Enterprises, Inc., 19 Conn. App. 806, 563 A.2d 1386, cert. denied, 212 Conn. 818, 565 A.2d 538 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1088, 110 S. Ct. 1155, 107 L. Ed. 2d 1058 (1990). Moreover, our own review of the record discloses that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s factual finding.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The named defendant, Gertrude Koshefsky,¹ appeals from a decision of the trial court declaring title to the real estate at issue to be in the plaintiff, Catherine T. Sparks.

While much of the trial testimony was disputed, it is axiomatic that the credibility of witnesses, the finding of facts, and the drawing of inferences are all within the trier’s province. “It is futile to assign error involving the weight of testimony or the credibility of witnesses.” Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App. 275, 293, 494 A.2d 576 (1985), appeal dismissed, 202 Conn. 221, 520 A.2d 225 (1987); Piantedosi v. Floridia, 186 Conn. 275, 277, 440 A.2d 977 (1982). This court cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses. Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 263, 413 A.2d 854 (1979); State v. Speers, 17 Conn. App. 587, 592, 554 [907]*907A.2d 769, cert. denied, 211 Conn. 808, 559 A.2d 1142, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851, 110 S. Ct. 150, 107 L. Ed. 2d 108, cert. denied sub nom. George v. Connecticut, 493 U.S. 893, 110 S. Ct. 241, 107 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1989). The named defendant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that its decision was otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061; see U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. K. J. Enterprises, Inc., 19 Conn. App. 806, 563 A.2d 1386, cert. denied, 212 Conn. 818, 565 A.2d 538 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1088, 110 S. Ct. 1155, 107 L. Ed. 2d 1058 (1990). Moreover, our own review of the record discloses that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s factual finding.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 A.2d 146, 26 Conn. App. 906, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-koshefsky-connappct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack