710 A.2d 192
(AC 16740)Appellate Court of Connecticut
O’Connell, C.J., and Lavery and Schaller, Js.
Argued March 31, 1998
Officially released June 16, 1998
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Action to recover damages for the alleged breach of an employment contract, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven and tried to the jury before Lager, J.;
verdict for the plaintiff; thereafter, the court denied the plaintiff’s motions for double damages and attorney’s fees and rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Max F. Brunswick, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Henry Lyons III, with whom was Leia Berla, for the appellee (named defendant).
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72[1] seeking the minimum wage, double damages and attorney’s fees with respect to the period of his domestic employment in the residence of the defendants pursuant to an oral agreement providing for wages of $40 per week plus room and board. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $5215.76, consisting of the amount of the minimum wages, based on a forty hour week during the entire thirteen month period of employment, less the maximum allowable amounts for room and board under applicable federal regulations.
Page 106
The trial court denied the plaintiff’s claim for double damages and attorney’s fees.
The plaintiff, appealing from the judgment of the trial court, claims that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) refusing to award double damages and attorney’s fees under General Statutes §§ 31-72 and 31-68 (a), and (2) crediting the defendants with the maximum amount allowed by federal law for room and board.
We have fully reviewed the record and briefs and considered the oral arguments of the parties. The appeal largely relies on factual issues. The trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Having applied the appropriate standard of review; Matteson v. Great Eastern Development, Ltd., 18 Conn. App. 618, 621, 559 A.2d 1165
(1989); we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conforms to the applicable law.
The judgment is affirmed.