Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)

Citation: Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Parent Document: Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2012-04-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7914567/atelier-constantin-popescu-llc-... ↗

Full Text

1,044 chars

To the extent that the defendants assert that there were no facts in the record to establish that Julie Chen instructed Interstate to perform the work, the defendants challenge the court’s findings of fact, rather than its legal conclusions. “[T]he court, in its role as finder of fact, [is] the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to afford their testimony . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crespo v. Commissioner of Correction, 292 Conn. 804, 810 n.5, 975 A.2d 42 (2009). The defendants offer no reason why it was clearly erroneous for the trial court not to credit Julie Chen’s testimony. One of the Interstate employees who removed the ductwork stated in a deposition, the transcript of which was before the court, that Julie Chen instructed him to remove the ductwork and, furthermore, that she was “persistent” in so instructing him. In light of this conflicting evidence, the court was free to conclude that Julie Chen’s testimony was not credible. *7472 Inherently Dangerous Work

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text