Lowell Catholic High School v. Criteria II, Ltd.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0482, Lowell Catholic High School v.
Criteria II, Ltd., the court on April 17, 2019, issued the following
order:

Having considered the briefs and limited record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.

The defendant, Criteria II, Ltd., appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(DeVries, J.) in a small claim case entering judgment for the plaintiff, Lowell
Catholic High School, following a hearing on the merits. We construe the
defendant’s brief to argue that the trial court’s order is unsupported by the
evidence and is contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that the court erred
in its evidentiary rulings and its management of the hearing.

We will uphold the trial court’s decision unless it is unsupported by the
evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, deferring to the trial court’s judgment
in evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence presented at trial. See
Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003). We review its evidentiary rulings
and decisions concerning the management of the hearing for unsustainable
exercises of discretion. See Figlioli v. R.J. Moreau Cos., 151 N.H. 618, 626
(2005); In the Matter of Conner & Conner, 156 N.H. 250, 252 (2007).

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the defendant, to provide
this court with a record sufficient to decide its issues on appeal. See Bean v.
Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 15(3)
(“If the moving party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding or
conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding
or conclusion.”). The defendant has failed to provide a record, including a
transcript of the merits hearing, sufficient for us to review the proceedings in
the trial court, including the evidence presented at trial and the trial court’s
discretionary judgments. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997)
(absent a transcript, we assume the evidence was sufficient to support the
court’s decision); see also, e.g., Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131,
137 (2001) (rules of appellate practice not relaxed for parties not represented
by attorneys). Accordingly, we conclude that the defendant has failed to meet
its burden to show that the trial court erred. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250.

Affirmed.

Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2