From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Connecticut National Bank v. Nagy

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Aug 21, 1984
479 A.2d 1224 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984)

Opinion

(2418)

Argued June 12, 1984

Decision released August 21, 1984

Action to recover on a promissory note, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield and referred to Hon. Michael J. Sicilian, state referee; judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed. No error.

Judith M. Trutt, for the appellants (defendants).

Richard S. Scalo, with whom, on the brief, were Ronald D. Japha and Abraham L Gordon, for the appellee (plaintiff).


The defendants have appealed from the judgment rendered for the plaintiff in an action on a promissory note.

This appeal, originally filed in the Supreme Court, was transferred to this court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, 2(c).

The defendants' claims of error attack the findings of fact of the trial court. The Supreme Court has repeatedly criticized and attempted, apparently in vain, to discourage this misuse of the appellate process. Baker v. Baker, 166 Conn. 476, 478, 352 A.2d 277 (1974); Southern New England Contracting Co. v. State, 165 Conn. 644, 646, 345 A.2d 550 (1974); Pawlinski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 165 Conn. 1, 3, 327 A.2d 583 (1973). Questions of fact are to be determined solely by the trial court. Appliances, Inc. v. Yost, 186 Conn. 673, 676-77, 443 A.2d 486 (1982). The weight given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are likewise within the province of that court. Dubicki v. Dubicki, 186 Conn. 709, 713, 443 A.2d 1268 (1982); Hallmark of Farmington v. Roy, 1 Conn. App. 278, 281, 471 A.2d 651 (1984). Our review of the record in this case indicates that there was ample evidence to support the court's findings and conclusions. Frumento v. Mezzanotte, 192 Conn. 606, 617-18, 473 A.2d 1193 (1984); Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217, 221-22, 435 A.2d 24 (1980).

The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in limiting the amount of attorney's fees awarded. Since the plaintiff has not filed a cross appeal; see Practice Book 3003; contesting this issue, the conclusion of the trial court is not now subject to review in this court. Lynch v. Davis, 181 Conn. 434, 437, 435 A.2d 977 (1980); Johnson v. Murzyn, 1 Conn. App. 176, 182 n. 6, 469 A.2d 1227 (1984).


Summaries of

Connecticut National Bank v. Nagy

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Aug 21, 1984
479 A.2d 1224 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984)
Case details for

Connecticut National Bank v. Nagy

Case Details

Full title:CONNECTICUT NATIONAL BANK v. ANDRE L. NAGY ET AL

Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut

Date published: Aug 21, 1984

Citations

479 A.2d 1224 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984)
479 A.2d 1224

Citing Cases

Rodziewicz v. Giguere

All of the defendant's claims of error attack the trial court's findings of fact. Questions of fact are to be…

Morande v. Newman Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Both the Supreme Court and this court have "repeatedly criticized and attempted, apparently in vain, to…