Kadar Development Corp. v. Masulli
| Decision Date | 07 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 29,29 |
| Citation | 33 Conn.Supp. 613,364 A.2d 851 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | KADAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al. v. Joseph MASULLI. |
Harry Rosenbluh, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).
Samuel T. Rost, Bridgeport, for appellee (named plaintiff).
The plaintiffs, Kadar Development Corporation and Mohican Vally Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Kadar Corporation and Mohican Corporation respectively, brought this action to recover damages for breach of an oral contract allegedly entered into by the plaintiff Kadar Corporation and the defendant. The issues were tried to the court which rendered judgment for the plaintiff Kadar Corporation only. The defendant has appealed from that judgment.
The defendant's assignment of errors consists mostly of a wholesale attack on the court's finding. Such wholesale attacks 'rarely produce any beneficial results'; Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Feldmann, 161 Conn. 265, 268, 287 A.2d 374; Branford Sewer Authority v. Williams, 159 Conn. 421, 424, 270 A.2d 546; and the practice of using them has been 'repeatedly discountenanced.' Hyatt v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 163 Conn. 379, 381, 311 A.2d 77. It is the function of the trial court, not this court, to try the issues of fact.
The trial court filed an extensive finding which the defendant did not move to correct. As a result of the defendant's failure to file a motion to correct, we are unable to act on his asignments of error which are directed to the finding. See Practice Book §§ 567G, 567L; State v. Caponigro, 4 Conn.Cir. 603, 614, 238 A.2d 434. 'The trial court should have an opportunity, by an appropriate motion to cortect, to consider the errors claimed in its finding, and thereafter its failure to act in accordance with the motion may be assigned as error.' Fellenbaum v. Markowski, 4 Conn.Cir. 363, 365, 232 A.2d 515, 517. Since the defendant did not make a motion to correct, the finding must stand.
The defendant's remaining assignments of error which were pursued in his brief appear to attack the trial court's conclusions on the ground that they are not supported by the subordinate facts. All assignments of error which were not briefed by the defendant are deemed abandoned. Waldron v. Raccio, 166 Conn. 608, 610, 353 A.2d 770; Salvatore v. Milicki, 163 Conn. 275, 280, 303, A.2d 734.
The trial court's conclusions are tested by the finding, not by the evidence. Klahr v. Kostopoulos, 138 Conn. 653, 655, 88 A.2d 332. The conclusions 'must stand unless . . . (they are) legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or unless . . . (they involve) the application of some erroneous rule of law.' Hutensky v. Avon, 163 Conn. 433, 437, 311 A.2d 92, 95; Schnier v. Ives, 162 Conn. 171, 177, 293 A.2d 1. Rex Marine Center, Inc. v. Newton, 32 Conn.Sup. 504, 507, 338 A.2d 507, 508.
The following facts found by the trial court ar pertinent: On August 13, 1971, the defendant entered into a written contract with Wayne Kadar to purchase two lots for $14,000 per lot. Wayne Kadar is the president and sole stockholder of the polaintiff Kadar Development Corporation. On August 13, 1971, the lots in question had been staked out, percolation tests had been conducted, permits had been taken out, excavations had been done, and footings installed. The only additional work planned for each fot was to 'bring the gas and water in.'
Wayne Kadar had a conversation with the defendant on August 13 or 14, 1971, concerning the installation of foundation walls on those lots. During that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nassra v. Nassra
...of limited liability company and not as an individual), cert. denied, 310 Conn. 927, 78 A.3d 145 (2013) ; Kadar Development Corp. v. Masulli , 33 Conn. Supp. 613, 364 A.2d 851 (1976) (corporation had standing to sue on oral contract entered into between corporation's president and defendant......
-
Keutman v. Mancinone, 237
...the finding as required by § 567G of the Practice Book. In view of this failure the finding must stand. Kadar Development Corporation v. Masulli, 33 Conn.Sup. 613, 614, 364 A.2d 851. The finding of the court is that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant 721 pairs of assorted men......