Opinion ID: 1924322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Nadeau next argues that the trial court erred when it found that his Massachusetts job opportunity was all but assured before the November 23, 2004 meeting. He asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support this finding. We will affirm the trial court's factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence. Osman v. Gagnon, 152 N.H. 359, 361, 876 A.2d 193 (2005). We find the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Nadeau had secured the Massachusetts job as of November 23, 2004. An official connected with the hiring in Massachusetts testified in his deposition that after the interviews on November 22, 2004, counsel deliberated, had discussion with the Fire Marshall and made a decision to offer the position to Mr. Nadeau and to continue in the process of hiring. On the morning of the November 23 meeting, Nadeau was informed of the decision and he fielded a congratulatory call from a Derry firefighter, who testified that he had learned of the news from the president of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire. As for Nadeau's argument that he would not have taken the Massachusetts job had the more generous severance package not been approved, the only testimony on this point was from Nadeau himself. The fact finder may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness or party. Brent v. Paquette, 132 N.H. 415, 418, 567 A.2d 976 (1989). Additionally, the trier of fact is not required to believe even uncontroverted testimony. Id. In this case, the trial court did not believe Nadeau, finding his credibility suspect. Affirmed.