Roy Allen-Webber & a. v. EPJ Quality Jobs, LLC & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0675, Roy Allen-Webber & a. v. EPJ
Quality Jobs, LLC & a., the court on May 4, 2023, issued the
following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). Defendant, Eric Jonilionis, appeals an order of the Circuit
Court (Ryan, J.), following an evidentiary hearing, awarding damages of
$5,832.58 plus interest and costs to the plaintiffs, Paul D. Allen-Webber and
Roy Allen-Webber, on their small claim alleging defective performance of a
contract to refinish flooring in their home. On appeal, he argues that the trial
court erred by finding that he performed the work in a deficient manner, and
by denying his motion to continue the hearing which, according to the trial
court, he did not support with documentation. We affirm.

We will uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they lack
evidentiary support or are legally erroneous. Vincent v. MacLean, 166 N.H.
132, 134 (2014). We defer to the trial court on matters such as resolving
conflicts in testimony, evaluating the credibility of witnesses, and determining
the weight of the evidence presented at trial. Id. It is the burden of the
appealing party, here Jonilionis, to provide a record sufficient to decide the
issues raised on appeal, and in the absence of a trial transcript, we assume
that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings. Bean v.
Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). In this case, Jonilionis has
not provided a transcript of the hearing on the merits, and thus, we assume
the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that the
defendants performed the contracted-for work in a deficient manner, and reject
Jonilionis’s argument that the trial court erred by finding otherwise.

With respect to the request for a continuance, the trial court has broad
discretion in managing the proceedings before it, and we will reverse its denial
of the motion to continue only if Jonilionis establishes that its decision was
clearly unreasonable to the prejudice of his case. Achille v. Achille, 167 N.H.
706, 713 (2015). Based upon our review of the record, we cannot conclude
that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by denying the
motion to continue, or by denying Jonilionis’s motion for reconsideration in
which he reiterated the basis for the continuance request. See id.
 The plaintiffs’ request in their memorandum of law to strike Jonilionis’s
brief is denied. Likewise, Jonilionis’s motions to strike the plaintiffs’
memorandum of law and appendix are denied.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2