AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves an appeal by Defendant Francesco Bufano against a judgment made in favor of Plaintiff Gerome Griego by the metropolitan court. The specifics of the events leading to the case are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Gerome Griego.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the presence of an advocate for the Plaintiff placed him at a disadvantage, leading to a contempt charge against him. He also raised issues regarding the trial court's denial of his counterclaims and the mechanics’ lien not being considered part of the case.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in ruling that an individual acting as an advocate for the Plaintiff did not participate in the proceedings, thereby placing the Defendant at a disadvantage.
• Whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s counterclaims.
• Whether the trial court erred in determining that the mechanics’ lien was not part of the case.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement by the Defendant was denied.
• The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the metropolitan court in favor of the Plaintiff.

Reasons

• Per MEDINA, J. (BOGARDUS and IVES, JJ., concurring): The appellate court found the Defendant's memorandum in opposition largely unresponsive to the concerns identified, particularly regarding the preservation of issues for appellate review (para 2). The court reiterated its role as a court of review, emphasizing that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder (para 2). Regarding the Defendant's claim about the Plaintiff enlisting an advocate, the court found the Defendant's statements insufficient to conclude that the trial court's findings were deficient or that the Defendant was prejudiced by the individual's presence (para 3). The appellate court also noted that the issues raised in the Defendant's memorandum in opposition regarding the trial court's denial of his counterclaims and the mechanics’ lien were not included in the original docketing statement, leading to the denial of the motion to amend the docketing statement (para 4). The court concluded that the Defendant had not presented any persuasive facts, authority, or argument to demonstrate that the proposed summary disposition was incorrect, affirming the judgment of the metropolitan court (paras 5-6).