Case Name: James R. Carr et al. v. Om P. Mehta
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1988-04-21
Citations: 14 Conn. App. 808
Docket Number: 6447
Parties: James R. Carr et al. v. Om P. Mehta
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 808–809

Head Matter:
James R. Carr et al. v. Om P. Mehta
(6447)
Dupont, C. J., Daly and O’Connell, Js.
Argued April 13 —
decision released April 21, 1988
Robert K. Lesser, for the appellant (defendant).
Dennis N. Garvey, with whom was Barbara Cox, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This appeal is an attempt by the defendant to have this court retry the facts found by the trial court. We will not. The defendant also claims that the trial court's orders are impermissibly vague. We do not agree. Furthermore, any claimed ambiguity could have been clarified for the defendant by the seeking of articulation from the trial court.
There is no error.