Case Name: BICC BRAND-REX COMPANY v. ARTHUR, HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1998-04-14
Citations: 48 Conn. App. 423
Docket Number: AC 17076
Parties: BICC BRAND-REX COMPANY v. ARTHUR, HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 423–424

Head Matter:
BICC BRAND-REX COMPANY v. ARTHUR, HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
(AC 17076)
O’Connell, C. X, and Foti and Landau, Js.
Argued March 4
officially released April 14, 1998
David R. Scott, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Stuart G. Blackburn, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion:
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This appeal implicates Connecticut's corporate long arm service of process statute. General Statutes § 33-929 (f) (1). The dispositive issue in this case is whether the contract between the parties was to be substantially performed in this state. The trial court found as a fact that the contract was to be substantially performed outside Connecticut. That factual finding was supported by the evidence and, thus, cannot be overturned by this court. See Cromwell Commons Associates v. Koziura, 21 Conn. App. 1, 5, 570 A.2d 1131 (1990).
The judgment is affirmed.