SPARKS v. KOSHEFSKY, 26 Conn. App. 906 (1991)

598 A.2d 146

(9706)Appellate Court of Connecticut

NORCOTT, LAVERY and LANDAU, Js.

Argued September 30, 1991

Decision released October 22, 1991

Action to quiet title to certain real property, brought to the Superior Court in the Judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, where the defendants filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the matter was tried to the court, Hale, J.; judgment quieting and settling title to the subject property in the plaintiff, from which the named defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Maria L. Hampton, with whom, on the brief, was Walter R. Hampton, Jr., for the appellant (named defendant).

Francis C. Vignati, Jr., for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

The named defendant, Gertrude Koshefsky,[1] appeals from a decision of the trial court declaring title to the real estate at issue to be in the plaintiff, Catherine T. Sparks.

While much of the trial testimony was disputed, it is axiomatic that the credibility of witnesses, the finding of facts, and the drawing of inferences are all within the trier’s province. “It is futile to assign error involving the weight of testimony or the credibility of witnesses.” Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App. 275, 293, 494 A.2d 576 (1985), appeal dismissed, 202 Conn. 221, 520 A.2d 225 (1987); Piantedosi v. Florida, 186 Conn. 275, 277, 440 A.2d 977 (1982). This court cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses. Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 263, 413 A.2d 854
(1979); State v. Speers, 17 Conn. App. 587, 592,

Page 907

554 A.2d 769, cert. denied, 211 Conn. 808, 559 A.2d 1142, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851, 110 S.Ct. 150, 107 L.Ed.2d 108, cert. denied sub nom. George v. Connecticut, 493 U.S. 893, 110 S.Ct. 241, 107 L.Ed.2d 192 (1989). The named defendant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that its decision was otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book 4061; see U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. K J. Enterprises, Inc., 19 Conn. App. 806, 563 A.2d 1386, cert. denied, 212 Conn. 818, 565 A.2d 538
(1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1088, 110 S.Ct. 1155, 107 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1990). Moreover, our own review of the record discloses that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s factual finding.

The judgment is affirmed.