In re Haydusky's Appeal from Prob.

PER CURIAM.

Bright, C. J., and Alvord and Cradle, Js.

The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the Probate Court's denial of her claims for distribution of assets from the decedent's estate. The trial court denied the plaintiff's appeal and rendered judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that this court having concluded that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous, the court did not abuse its discretion, and the court's decision was legally correct, the court's judgment was affirmed.

Appeal from the decision of the Probate Court for the district of Milford-Orange denying the plaintiff's claims against the estate of her mother, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford and tried to the court, Hon. Arthur A. Hiller, judge trial referee; judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Marianne Haydusky, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). John-Henry M. Steele, for the appellee (named defendant). Susan King Shaw, for the appellees (defendant Karen Primavera et al.).

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Marianne Haydusky, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her claims on appeal from the decision of the Probate Court, which rejected her claims for distribution of assets from her mother's estate. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court made clearly erroneous findings of fact, made erroneous evidentiary rulings, abused its discretion in a number of ways, including denying her request for a continuance of the trial, and misapplied the law. After carefully reviewing the briefs of the parties, in conjunction with their oral arguments and the record from the trial court, we conclude that the findings of the court are not clearly erroneous, that the court did not abuse its discretion as claimed by the plaintiff, and that the court's decision is correct in law.

The judgment is affirmed.