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.


Motion Practice in Family Matters - 2017 edition

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=594

The 2017 edition of Motion Practice in Family Matters has been posted to our research guides page.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Motions and Requests..........................................................................3

Section 2: Transfer of Action in Family Matters.....................................................6

Table 1: Motion for Exclusive Possession of Home...............................................9

Section 3: Request for Conciliation.......................................................................11

Section 4: Motion to Open Judgment in a Family Matter......................................14




Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=588

AC38303 - Colonial Investors, LLC v. Furbush (Summary process; nonpayment of rent; "The defendant . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff . . . in this summary process action. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the summary process action due to the legal insufficiency of the notice to quit and (2) improperly held that the defendant's April, 2014 payment to the plaintiff correctly was applied to her past arrearages that were due rather than to her April, 2014 rent obligation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=591

AC37565 - Bigelow v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that counsel in both his underlying criminal prosecution and his first habeas proceeding rendered ineffective assistance. Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC39090 - Dull v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "The petitioner… appeals from the habeas court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d). Specifically, he argues that he established good cause for the delay in the filing of his third habeas corpus petition. We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=592

AC38906 - Commissioner of Public Health v. Colandrea ("The defendant, Anthony P. Colandrea, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the petition to enforce a subpoena duces tecum filed by the plaintiff, the Commissioner of Public Health, requesting the production of certain patient records from the defendant. The defendant claims that the plaintiff failed to make a sufficient factual showing that the subpoenaed records were related to a complaint under investigation, as required by General Statutes § 52-146o. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=590

AC38480 - Sanchez v. Edson Mfg. ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board erred (1) in affirming the commissioner’s decision that the plaintiff was not entitled to temporary partial or temporary total disability benefits from August, 2013 to July, 2014, because the commissioner’s finding as to the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s workplace injury was not supported by sufficient subordinate facts; and (2) in not remanding this case to the commissioner with instructions that he articulate why, in reaching his decision, he disregarded the opinion of his own medical examiner as to the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injury. We affirm the decision of the board.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=589

AC38070 - Medeiros v. Medeiros ("In this postdissolution proceeding, the defendant, David D. Medeiros, appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding him in contempt for violating an order providing the plaintiff, Christine Medeiros, with access to their minor child. The defendant claims that the court committed error in (1) failing to allow him a fair opportunity to present a defense to the plaintiff’s motion for contempt; (2) failing to require that the evidence establishing its finding of contempt met the required clear and convincing standard of proof; (3) preventing the defendant from testifying as to statements made to him by the minor child about events occurring during a visit with the plaintiff; and (4) imposing certain sanctions, including monetary fines. We agree with the defendant that the monetary fines imposed on him by the court were improper, accordingly, we reverse that part of the judgment of the trial court. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=585

AC39796 - State v. Torres (Murder; carrying pistol without permit; "The defendant, Quavon Torres, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-54a and carrying a pistol without a permit pursuant to General Statutes § 29-35 (a). He claims on appeal that an eyewitness' first time in-court identification of him as the shooter should have been excluded pursuant to our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017) (No. 16-866). We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=586

AC38878 - Northrup v. Witkowski (Negligence; "The underlying action arose as a result of the repeated flooding of residential property due to inadequate street drainage of which the municipality and its officials allegedly were aware but failed to correct. The plaintiffs, George Northrup and Helen Northrup, the owners of the property at issue, appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants—the borough of Naugatuck (town); Henry J. Witkowski, Jr., the town's former superintendent of streets; James Stewart, the former town engineer and, later, the town's director of public works; and Robert A. Mezzo, the town's mayor —upon its determination that all counts of the plaintiffs' complaint were barred by governmental immunity.

"The plaintiffs claim on appeal that the court improperly determined that (1) the defendants were entitled to governmental immunity on all counts as a matter of law because the acts or omissions of which they complained were discretionary rather than ministerial in nature, (2) the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity did not apply to the flooding at issue because the plaintiffs were not subject to imminent harm, and (3) the allegations of recklessness directed against the individual defendants could not be sustained as a matter of law. We disagree with the plaintiffs and, for the reasons that follow, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38716 - Questell v. Farogh (Negligence; "The defendant, Sheeba Farogh, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to open the default judgment, which was rendered after she failed to appear at a scheduled trial management conference. On appeal, the defendant claims that she was prevented from appearing at the conference by mistake and that a valid defense existed at the time the judgment was rendered. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=587

AC39953 - In re Luis N. (Termination of parental rights; mother; "On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) violated her right to due process by meeting with the children ex parte, (2) failed timely to canvass her pursuant to In re Yasiel R., (3) erred by concluding that she had failed to rehabilitate to the degree that she could not be restored as a responsible parent within a reasonable time, and (4) erred by finding that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate her parental rights in them. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC39934- In re Luis N. (Termination of parental rights; father; "On appeal, the respondent claims that the judgments should be reversed because the court met with the children ex parte in the presence of a Department of Children and Families visitation supervisor, failed to make a record of its observations regarding the children, and failed to declare a mistrial. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


2017 Probate Court Rules of Procedure

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=584

The Connecticut Probate Courts have posted the 2017 edition of the Probate Court Rules of Procedure. The rules became effective on July 1, 2017.

The 2017 edition includes new rules 20 and 21, which address fiduciary actions and the probate mediation panel, respectively. Please see the Probate Court's Summary of Significant Revisions to the Probate Court Rules of Procedure for more information on both the new rules and the amendments to existing ones.



Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=582

SC19645 - State v. Acosta (Sexual assault first degree; risk of injury to child; certification from Appellate Court; "The primary question presented in this appeal is whether evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct that occurred twelve years before a charged offense is too remote to be admissible pursuant to the factors set forth in State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418, 476, 953 A.2d 45 (2008). The defendant, Roberto Acosta, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1) and (2). State v. Acosta, 162 Conn. App. 774, 775, 129 A.3d 808 (2016). The defendant, relying on DeJesus, argues that evidence of twelve year old uncharged sexual misconduct is too remote and insufficiently similar to the charged offenses, that the trial court therefore abused its discretion in admitting it, and that the Appellate Court improperly concluded otherwise. The state counters that the uncharged conduct is not too remote under DeJesus, particularly in light of the similarities between the conduct and the victims. We agree with the state that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the evidence and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")




Connecticut Law Journal - July 25, 2017

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=580



Habeas Supreme Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=576

SC19855 - Perez v. Commissioner of Correction ("This case presents challenges to the constitutionality of substantive and procedural amendments to General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 54-125a, which governs parole eligibility for persons who received a definite sentence or aggregate sentence of more than two years, as applied to an offender who was sentenced before the amendments took effect. More specifically, we consider statutory amendments (1) eliminating earned risk reduction credit from the calculation of a violent offender’s parole eligibility date, when such credit was not available at the time the offense was committed; Public Acts 2013, No. 13-3, § 59 (P.A. 13-3); and (2) altering parole eligibility hearing procedures to allow the Board of Pardons and Paroles to forgo holding a hearing. Public Acts 2013, No. 13-247, § 376 (P.A. 13-247)… We agree with the petitioner to the extent that the habeas court improperly dismissed many of the claims raised in the petition solely on the basis of the ‘‘speculative nature’’ of earned risk reduction credit. Nevertheless, applying the proper test to each claim raised by the petitioner, we hold that the habeas court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claims. We therefore affirm the judgment of the habeas court dismissing the petition.")

SC19854 - James E. v. Commissioner of Correction ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the habeas court properly dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, James E., alleging that a 2013 amendment to General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 54-125a repealing a provision advancing certain inmates’ parole eligibility dates by earned risk reduction credit violated the ex post facto clause of the United States constitution. See Public Acts 2013, No. 13-3, § 59 (P.A. 13-3)... On appeal, the petitioner claims that the proper comparison for purposes of the ex post facto analysis should have been between the provision in effect at the time of his sentencing and the challenged provision thereafter enacted, which would have reflected that he has suffered an increase in punishment. For the reasons set forth in Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 357, 374–75, 378–80, A.3d (2017), we disagree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=575

SC19838 - Machado v. Taylor (Motor vehicle negligence action; "The sole issue in this appeal is whether a party's delay in raising a challenge to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a proper ground on which to decline to dismiss the action. The defendant state Department of Transportation appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff . . . in his negligence action, following the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment of dismissal premised on the plaintiff's failure to allege and prove an element of the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity cited as authority to bring the action. We agree with the defendant that the timing of its motion was an improper ground on which to deny the motion for judgment of dismissal insofar as it challenged subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for reconsideration of that motion.")


1 2 3