PER CURIAM.

Marianne Haydusky, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

John-Henry M. Steele, for the appellee (named defendant).

Susan King Shaw, New Haven, for the appellees (defendant Karen Primavera et al.).

Bright, C.J., and Alvord and Cradle, Js.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Marianne Haydusky, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her claims on appeal from the decision of the Probate Court, which rejected her claims for distribution of assets from her mother's estate. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court made clearly erroneous findings of fact, made erroneous evidentiary rulings, abused its discretion in a number of ways, including denying her request for a continuance of the trial, and misapplied the law. After carefully reviewing the briefs of the parties, in conjunction with their oral arguments and the record from the trial court, we conclude that the findings of the court are not clearly erroneous, that the court did not abuse its discretion as claimed by the plaintiff, and that the court's decision is correct in law.

The judgment is affirmed.