witnesses lacked credibility, rendering their testimony " 'unimpressive' " and " 'useless' "), cert. denied, 308 Conn. 947, 67 A.3d 290 (2013); Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 41 Conn. App. 515, 521-23, 677 A.2d 1 (1996) (deferring to habeas court's finding that petitioner's new witness testimony was " 'unworthy of belief' "), appeal dismissed, 240 Conn. 547, 692 A.2d 1231 (1997); Siano v. Warden, 31 Conn. App. 94, 103, 623 A.2d 1035 (upholding habeas court's decision to grant habeas petition on basis of counsel's failure to call expert witness when habeas court "had the opportunity to observe [the expert's] demeanor, appearance, and ability to relate and communicate facts, and found that he made an excellent witness"), cert. denied, 226 Conn. 910, 628 A.2d 984 (1993); see also Doehrer v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 774, 784-85, 795 A.2d 548 (deferring to habeas court's decision not to credit uncontradicted testimony of petitioner's expert witness), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 924, 797 A.2d 520 (2002). I agree with the majority's statement in footnote 38 of its opinion that the proper standard for assessing credibility of new witness testimony in this context is whether "there is a reasonable probability of the jury having credited the . . . testimony . . . ."

’ ” and “ ‘useless' ”), cert. denied, 308 Conn. 947, 67 A.3d 290 (2013) ; Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 41 Conn.App. 515, 521–23, 677 A.2d 1 (1996) (deferring to habeas court's finding that petitioner's new witness testimony was “ ‘unworthy of belief’ ”), appeal dismissed, 240 Conn. 547, 692 A.2d 1231 (1997) ; Siano v. Warden, 31 Conn.App. 94, 103, 623 A.2d 1035 (upholding habeas court's decision to grant habeas petition on basis of counsel's failure to call expert witness when habeas court “had the opportunity to observe [the expert's] demeanor, appearance, and ability to relate and communicate facts, and found that he made an excellent witness”), cert. denied, 226 Conn. 910, 628 A.2d 984 (1993) ; see also Doehrer v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn.App. 774, 784–85, 795 A.2d 548 (deferring to habeas court's decision not to credit uncontradicted testimony of petitioner's expert witness), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 924, 797 A.2d 520 (2002). I agree with the majority's statement in footnote 38 of its opinion that the proper standard for assessing credibility of new witness testimony in this context is whether “there is a reasonable probability of the jury having credited the ... testimony....”

We agree with the respondent."A trial attorney is entitled to rely reasonably on the opinion of an expert witness; see Doehrer v. Commissioner of Correction , 68 Conn. App. 774, 783, 795 A.2d 548, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 924, 797 A.2d 520 (2002) ; and is not required to continue searching for a different expert [or for multiple experts once he has done so]." Stephen S. v. Commissioner of Correction , 134 Conn. App. 801, 816, 40 A.3d 796, cert. denied, 304 Conn. 932, 43 A.3d 660 (2012) ; see id., at 816–17, 40 A.3d 796 ("[w]e cannot conclude that [counsel's] performance was deficient when he consulted with an expert witness regarding the victim's physical examination, yet reasonably concluded not to use the expert witness at trial after determining that such testimony would not benefit the petitioner's defense"); see also Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction , 90 Conn. App. 420, 426, 876 A.2d 1277, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 930, 883 A.2d 1246 (2005), cert. denied sub nom.

The petitioner, however, contends that McQuillan should have sought another medical expert to testify concerning the victim's physical examination because there was contrary medical evidence available at the time of trial. A trial attorney is entitled to rely reasonably on the opinion of an expert witness; see Doehrer v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn.App. 774, 783, 795 A.2d 548, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 924, 797 A.2d 520 (2002); and is not required to continue searching for a different expert. See Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn.App. 420, 426, 876 A.2d 1277 (counsel was entitled to rely on expert opinion when determining that petitioner did not suffer from mental defect, and was not required to “seek an indeterminate number of expert opinions” before concluding that petitioner did not suffer from mental defect or disease), cert. denied, 275 Conn. 930, 883 A.2d 1246 (2005), cert. denied sub nom.

Certainly, the court was not required to accept as true the respondent's uncontradicted expert testimony. See Doehrer v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 774, 784, 795 A.2d 548, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 924, 797 A.2d 520 (2002). We also disagree with the respondent's assertion that the court's conclusion was improper because there was no expert evidence that supported it.