2014-0451, Maka Tsulukidze v. Virginia Nicholas

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

has not demonstrated reversible error. See id. relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff our review of the trial court’s narrativ e order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the reversible error. See Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating

protect the plaintif f from her roommate’s threats. We affirm. roommate a co - tenant, and that the defendant was negligent when she failed to nature of a document that the plaintiff signed, which made the plaintiff’s property manager of the plaintiff’s apartment building, “misrepresented” the and did not make any findings of fact on her c laims that the defendant, the court misconstrued the nature of her claims, did not evaluate her evidence, plaintiff’s small claims action. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial (McKenna, J.) granting judgment to the defendant, Virginia Nicholas, in the 18(1). The plaintiff, Maka Tsulukidze, appeals an order of the Circuit Court we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. Having considered the parties’ briefs and the record submitted on appeal,

order: Nicholas, the court on March 16, 2015, issued the following In Case No. 2014 - 0451, Maka Tsulukidze v. Virginia