Dana Investment Corp. v. Schlesinger
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** DANA INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. RICHARD SCHLESINGER ET AL. (AC 19314) Foti, Schaller and Peters, Js. Argued June 13 officially released September 26, 2000 Counsel Howard A. Lawrence, for the appellant (substitute plaintiff). Francis G. Pennarola, with whom, on the brief, was John B. Grant, Jr., for the appellees (defendant Crystal Bay Development, LLC, et al.). Opinion PER CURIAM. The substitute plaintiff, Quik-Power International Corporation,1 appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court in this action to quiet title in favor of the defendant Crystal Bay Development, LLC.2 The plaintiff claims that the facts found by the trial court are clearly erroneous. We have fully reviewed the record and conclude that the facts found are adequately supported by the record, and that the trial court did not apply an improper rule of law. The issues regarding the underlying factual disputes were resolved prop- erly in the trial court s thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. Dana Investment Corp. v. Schlesinger, 46 Conn. Sup. 527, A.2d (1998). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues. It could serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See In re Karrlo K., 40 Conn. App. 73, 75, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996). This court does not retry the case or evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. State v. Amarillo, [198 Conn. 285, 289, 503 A.2d 146 (1986)]. State v. Taylor, 23 Conn. App. 426, 429, 580 A.2d 1004 (1990). Rather, we must defer to the [trier of fact s] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude. . . . State v. Mejia, [233 Conn. 215, 224, 658 A.2d 571 (1995)]. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McClam, 44 Conn. App. 198, 208, 689 A.2d 475, cert. denied, 240 Conn. 912, 690 A.2d 400 (1997). The function of this court on appeal is limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is clearly erroneous. Practice Book § 4061 [now § 60-5] State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 374 75, 556 A.2d 112, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933, 110 S. Ct. 322, 107 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1989). State v. Alterisi, 47 Conn. App. 199, 204, 702 A.2d 651 (1997). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut National Bank v. Giacomi, 242 Conn. 17, 70, 699 A.2d 101 (1997). We conclude, therefore, that the trial court s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. The judgment is affirmed. 1 Quik-Power International Corporation was substituted as plaintiff as an assignee of the named plaintiff Dana Investment Corporation. 2 The defendants are Richard Schlesinger, William Weinstein, Mark David Associates, Crystal Bay Development, LLC, Poughkeepsie Savings Bank (Poughkeepsie), Pond View Village, LLC (Pond View), Bridgeport Oral and Maxillofacial Profit Sharing Plan (Bridgeport), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Crystal Bay Limited Partnership. The trial court rendered judgment quieting title to the subject property in Crystal Bay Development LLC, subject to the mortgages in favor of Poughkeepsie, Pond View and Bridgeport.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
