THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0381, Ruth Tranquillo v. Edmond Demers, the court on February 28, 2019, issued the following order: The motion filed by the plaintiff, Ruth Tranquillo, asking the court to accept certain photographs is denied. Having considered the plaintiff’s brief, the memorandum of law filed by the defendant, Edmond Demers, the plaintiff’s response to that memorandum, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).

The plaintiff appeals a Circuit Court (Stephen, J.) order entering judgment in her favor in the amount of $2,390 on her claim that the defendant failed to repay a $4,680 loan. We affirm.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues, in effect, that the evidence does not support the amount of the trial court’s judgment. In reviewing a trial court’s decision rendered after a trial on the merits, we uphold the trial court’s factual findings and rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are legally erroneous. O’Malley v. Little, 170 N.H. 272, 275 (2017). We do not decide whether we would have ruled differently than the trial court, but rather, whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence. Id. Here, the amount of the judgment is supported by the defendant’s testimony at trial. Although the plaintiff gave contrary testimony, we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of the witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence. Id. In light of our deferential standard of review, we uphold the trial court’s decision.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox, Clerk