Court Opinion

ID: 7852387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 17:37:10.35493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:29:21.191415
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
In this case, the defendant is attacking the factual findings of the trial court and the legal conclusions drawn from those facts. The defendant is asking us to retry this case. We cannot. On appeal, the function of this court is limited solely to the determination of whether the factual findings of the trial court are clearly erroneous or whether the decision is otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061 (formerly § 3060D); Damora v. Christ-Janer, 184 Conn. 109, 113, 441 A.2d 61 (1981); Ram Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. A.B.C. Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2 Conn. App. 54, 56, 475 A.2d 341 (1984). It is the province of the trial court to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence. Essex Savings Bank v. Leeker, 2 Conn. App. 98, 102, 476 A.2d 1071 (1984); Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment Agency, 170 Conn. 271, 272, 365 A.2d 819 (1976). This court cannot find facts or draw conclusions from *80primary facts found, but can only review such findings to determine whether they could legally, logically and reasonably be found and whether the trial court could thereby conclude as it did. Appliances, Inc. v. Yost, 186 Conn. 673, 676-77, 443 A.2d 486 (1982); Hallmark of Farmington v. Roy, 1 Conn. App. 278, 280-81, 471 A.2d 651 (1984).
Our review of the record and the briefs, with particular attention to the trial court’s exhaustive and carefully drawn memorandum of decision, indicates that the factual findings of the court are fully supported by the evidence and its legal conclusions are legally and logically sound.
There is no error.