The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Legal Malpractice Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=425

AC38181 - Rendahl v. Peluso (Breach of fiduciary duty; legal malpractice; "The plaintiff, Joy M. Rendahl, individually and as administratrix of the estate of her deceased mother, Frances M. Rendahl, brought this action against the defendants, Frank N. Peluso and his law firm, the Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C. (collectively, the defendant), to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and wilful, wanton, and reckless misconduct based upon the defendant's alleged mishandling of his responsibilities as the executor of and the attorney for the estate. Following an eight day trial and two days of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed two motions to set aside the verdict, alleging, in the first motion, that the court erred in declining to accept an earlier verdict by the same jury, assertedly awarding her punitive damages on her claim of breach of fiduciary duty, and requiring the jury, under supplemental instructions, to continue its deliberations and make further factual findings before returning its final verdict; and, in the second motion, that the court erred in refusing to admit certain relevant, material evidence at trial. On June 30, 2015, the trial court, Povodator, J., denied both motions. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the plaintiff reasserts the claims presented in her motions to set aside the verdict, and seeks reversal of the court's judgment based upon the denial of those motions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Attorney Discipline Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=420

SC19698 - Disciplinary Counsel v. Elder ("The issue that we must decide in this case is whether the six year limitation period set forth in Practice Book § 2-32 (a) (2) (E) constitutes a mandatory bar to grievance complaints brought after that six year limitation period has expired or whether the provision, instead, is discretionary. On April 4, 2014, Wesley S. Spears filed a grievance complaint against the defendant, Attorney Joseph Elder, alleging that the defendant had engaged in professional misconduct in 2004. A reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee conducted a hearing on the grievance complaint and found by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had violated certain of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The reviewing committee also directed the plaintiff, the Disciplinary Counsel, to bring this presentment action against the defendant. After the plaintiff brought this action in 2015, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the action was barred by § 2-32 (a) (2) (E). The trial court concluded that the time limitation set forth in § 2-32 (a) (2) (E) is not mandatory and denied the motion to dismiss. After a trial to the court, the trial court concluded that the defendant had violated certain of the Rules of Professional Conduct and ordered that the defendant be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. The defendant then filed this appeal. We conclude that § 2-32 (a) (2) (E) bars grievance complaints that are not brought within the six year limitation period unless one of the exceptions set forth in § 2-32 (a) (2) (E) (i) or (ii) applies. Because none of these exceptions applies in the present case, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to that court with direction to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss.")



Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=419

AC38538 - Papallo v. Lefebvre (Fiduciary duty; "On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred by concluding that (1) the defendant did not breach his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff through his handling of the LLC revenues; (2) the defendant did not have the intent necessary to be found liable for statutory theft; (3) an accounting was not warranted; and (4) the defendant's conduct did not violate CUTPA. The defendant did not participate in this appeal. We agree with the first claim but disagree with the remaining ones. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the court.")


New Titles in the Middletown Law Library

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=418



Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=414

AC38179 - LM Ins. Corp. v. Connecticut Dismanteling, LLC ("The defendant, Connecticut Dismanteling, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, LM Insurance Corporation. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly admitted into evidence a certain document under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay, (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff and (3) the court improperly drew an adverse inference against the defendant for failing to call two witnesses at trial. We disagree with the defendant’s claims, and, accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=416

AC38413 - Glastonbury v. Sakon ("The defendant John Alan Sakon appeals from the orders of the trial court striking his special defenses and from the judgment of nonsuit entered with respect to his counterclaims. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion to strike his original and his substitute special defenses and counterclaims. The appeal is dismissed in part, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part.")

AC38622 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Cam ("The defendant Eugene A. Cam appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure claiming that the trial court erred when it concluded that a settlement agreement he had entered into with the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., permitted the plaintiff to pay the defendant a certain sum of money within a 'reasonable time' of the payment deadline provided in the agreement. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=415

AC38284 - Bruno v. The Travelers Companies ("The plaintiff, Lisa Bruno, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendants, The Travelers Companies and The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, after the court (1) granted the defendants' second motion to strike counts three through nine of the plaintiff's amended complaint on the ground of absolute immunity, and (2) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on counts one and two on the grounds that those counts were brought outside of the two year limitation period contained in the parties' contract of insurance. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court's judgment was improper because (1) 'absolute immunity implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction,' and, therefore, the court erred in allowing the defendants to raise that issue via a motion to strike, (2) the defendants were not immune to suit on the basis of an absolute privilege, and (3) the plaintiff's claims were not time barred.

"After review, we conclude that the litigation privilege provides an absolute immunity from suit and, thus, implicates the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the plaintiff's causes of action against the defendants are barred. We further conclude that the court should have dismissed the plaintiff's original complaint, rather than permit her to replead, after it determined that the doctrine of absolute immunity applied to her entire complaint. Accordingly, the form of judgment is improper, and we, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter with direction to render a judgment of dismissal. ")

AC37965 - PMG Land Associates, L.P. v. Harbour Landing Condominium Assn., Inc. ("The plaintiff, PMG Land Associates, L.P., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Harbour Landing Condominium Association, Inc., David Potter, Vincent DeLauro, and Margareth Butterworth. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly held that the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=413

AC38402 - Watkins v. Demos ("The plaintiff, Beverly Watkins, appeals from the postjudgment orders of the court entered after the dissolution of her marriage to the defendant, John Nicholas Demos. The plaintiff challenges the trial court’s denial of her postjudgment motion for contempt and her motion to open the judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38379 - Horey v. Horey ("The defendant, Joyce A. Horey, appeals from the financial orders relating to the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Alan L. Horey. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by entering an alimony order that terminates upon the sale of the plaintiff’s business. She argues that such a time limited alimony order is inconsistent with the facts found by the court, and that the court, therefore, reasonably could not have concluded as it did. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Medical Malpractice Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=412

SC19761 - Pease v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital (Medical malpractice; motion for contempt; "The dispositive question presented by this appeal is whether a prevailing party in a civil action can enforce an unpaid award of costs through a motion for civil contempt rather than by pursuing the various postjudgment remedies authorized by chapter 906 of the General Statutes. We conclude that, under ordinary circumstances, such as those in this case, the court's inherent contempt power is not an appropriate means of enforcing an award of costs or other monetary judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion of the named defendant, The Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, to hold the plaintiff, Robert Pease, in contempt of court.")

AC37749 - Ruff v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc. (Medical malpractice; directed verdict; expert witness; "In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff, Michael Ruff, appeals from the trial court's granting of the motion by the defendant Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc., for a directed verdict and the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court erred in: (1) precluding the expert testimony of his sole standard of care witness, Donna Maselli, a registered nurse; and (2) granting the defendant's motion for a directed verdict based on its preclusion of Maselli's testimony. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=411

SC19786 - State v. Donald (Assault first degree; robbery first degree; conspiracy to commit robbery first degree; carrying pistol without permit; "The defendant, Ravon Donald, challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a signed, sworn statement he made to the police in which he confessed to committing a robbery and assault at a grocery store. The defendant claims that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress his statement because the police initially questioned him concerning his knowledge of the robbery while he was in custody before they provided Miranda warnings and then, after the warnings, proceeded to more thoroughly question him, resulting in the challenged statement. We hold that regardless of whether the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress testimony regarding the initial questioning of the defendant was error, any such error was harmless. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress the defendant's written statement because under the specific facts of the present case there was sufficient separation between the initial questioning and the subsequent interrogation to render the Miranda warnings effective and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37884 - State v. Petion (Assault in first degree; "The defendant, Divenson Petion, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for first degree assault as to one of the two victims because the state failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that that victim had suffered a "serious physical injury," and (2) prosecutorial improprieties during closing argument violated his right to a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=410

AC38584 - Richman v. Wallman (Dissolution of marriage; "The self-represented plaintiff, Terri L. Richman, appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering her to sign the revised qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) that were prepared to divide the retirement assets of her former husband, the defendant, Scott A. Wallman, between the two parties. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly held her in contempt, and (2) improperly modified the distribution of the parties' property without the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to do so. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Notice Regarding the Connecticut Law Journal

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=409

The Connecticut Judicial Branch recently posted the following message in the Latest News, Notices and Updates section of the website:

“04/20/17 -- Notice Regarding the Connecticut Law Journal -- The Connecticut Law Journal will be available free of charge on the Judicial Branch website beginning July 1, 2017. The printed version of the law journal will no longer be produced once the publication is available online. Please do not file new subscription requests or payment for renewal subscriptions at this time. Hard bound volumes of the Connecticut Reports and the Connecticut Appellate Reports will continue to be printed and sold.”


New Titles in the New Haven Law Library

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=408

The New Haven Law Library has recently acquired the following new books from the American Bar Association:

For additional information, please contact your local Judicial Branch Law Library.


New Divorce Navigator tool from the Judicial Branch

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=407

The Judicial Branch has created a new online resource designed to help make the divorce process clearer and easier to navigate.

From the Press Release:

A newly developed “Divorce Navigator” is available to the public through the Judicial Branch’s website to assist in simplifying the divorce process....

The Divorce Navigator is designed to help parties decide which divorce process is best for them through a series of questions. Based on answers the parties provide, this online resource will direct them toward a divorce process that may best suit their situation.

For links to the law and other legal resources on divorce in Connecticut, see our Law about Divorce webpage.



Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=405

AC37843 - William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. v. Zajaczkowski ("The defendants, Peter Zajaczkowski and Iwona Zajaczkowski, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor the plaintiff, William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) erred in concluding that they had breached the exclusive agreement they had with the plaintiff, (2) abused its discretion by awarding the plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, and (3) violated General Statutes § 42-150aa with respect to the award of attorney’s fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=404

AC38895 - Prendergast. V. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ("The plaintiff, Hart Prendergast, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, suspending his license to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to General Statutes § 14-227b. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that there was probable cause to arrest him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating liquor or drugs, and (2) concluded that his due process rights were not violated when the hearing officer continued the hearing to subpoena the police officers involved in the plaintiff’s arrest. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20