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.

Connecticut Law Journal - May 20, 2025

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6324

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 47, for May 20, 2025 is now available.

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 784 - 841)
  • Volume 351: Orders (Pages 930 - 932)
  • Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 232: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 618 - 714)
  • Volume 232: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencie



Juvenile Law Supreme & Appellate Court Slip Opinions

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6322

SC21078, SC21079 - In re Andrew C. ("Under General Statutes § 52-212a, courts lack the power to open a judgment unless a motion to open is filed within four months of the date that notice of the judgment was issued. One exception to this rule is when the trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction was entirely obvious at the time of the judgment. See, e.g., Schoenhorn v. Moss, 347 Conn. 501, 515, 298 A.3d 236 (2023). The dispositive issue in these certified appeals is whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant a motion by foster parents for permissive intervention in the dispositional phase of a neglect proceeding. In 2023, the respondent father, Chester C. (respondent), filed a motion to open and vacate a 2021 judgment transferring guardianship of his minor son, Andrew C. (Andrew), to the intervening foster parents, Morgan A. and Alberto A. The motion was filed on the basis of In re Ryan C., 220 Conn. App. 507, 299 A.3d 308, cert. denied, 348 Conn. 901, 300 A.3d 1166 (2023), in which the Appellate Court held that General Statutes § 46b-129 (p) prohibits foster parents from intervening in such proceedings. Id., 525–26. The trial court granted the respondent’s motion and vacated the judgment transferring guardianship. The court reasoned that, because the foster parents were statutorily prohibited from intervening, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant their motion to intervene, and, therefore, the resulting judgment transferring guardianship of Andrew to them was void ab initio. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision on the respondent’s motion; In re Andrew C., 229 Conn. App. 51, 71, 326 A.3d 575 (2024); and we granted Andrew’s and the foster parents’ separate petitions for certification to appeal. While their appeals were pending, this court decided In re Jewelyette M., 351 Conn. 511, 332 A3d 207 (2025), which overruled In re Ryan C., concluding that ‘‘the legislature did not intend § 46b-129 (p) to prohibit a trial court from granting permissive intervention to a foster parent when appropriate.’’ Id., 515. Our decision in In re Jewelyette M., which held that § 46b-129 (p) does not limit the trial court’s authority to permit a foster parent to intervene in accordance with Practice Book § 35a-4 (c); id., 535; controls the outcome of these appeals, and, accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Court’s judgment.")

AC47971 - In re J. D. ("The respondent mother, A. T., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights and denying her motion for posttermination visitation rights with respect to her daughter, J. On appeal, the respondent claims that she did not receive effective assistance of counsel in opposing the petition to terminate her parental rights because her trial counsel did not present the testimony of Ralph Balducci, a psychologist, who had evaluated the respondent in January, 2023. We conclude that the respondent has not presented an adequate record by which we can review that claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6321

SC20965 - State v. Sullivan (Unlawful restraint in the second degree; sexual assault in the fourth degree; attempt to commit sexual assault in the third degree; sexual assault in the third degree; “In this certified appeal, the defendant claims that the prosecutor in this case, State’s Attorney Anne Mahoney, engaged in certain improprieties during her closing argument that deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. We conclude that, although the prosecutor’s statements were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)


Law Library Hours: May 16th to May 23rd

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6320

Friday, May 16th

  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Monday, May 19

  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.

Tuesday, May 20

  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.
  • Danbury Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m. and closes at 1:00 p.m.

Wednesday, May 21

  • Bridgeport Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
  • New London Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, May 22

  • Torrington Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m

Friday, May 23

  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6318

AC46579 - State v. Kenneth K. (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) granted the state’s motion for joinder for trial of the information charging the defendant with a violation of a protective order with a separate information charging the defendant with two counts of breach of the peace, (2) ordered the defendant to comply with any family court orders as a condition of probation, and (3) imposed a forty year standing criminal protective order that prohibited the defendant from coming within 100 yards of his former wife, L, and from contacting her. We conclude that only the trial court’s condition of probation was improper and, therefore, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC47241 - State v. Leveille (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court’s final instruction to the jury was constitutionally deficient, and (3) prosecutorial impropriety during closing argument deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6319

AC47189 - M. W. v. G. C. ("The defendant, G. C., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, M. W. On appeal, the defendant challenges the court’s property distribution orders on the basis that the court made clearly erroneous factual findings as to (1) the defendant’s net income and (2) the value of the marital home. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6317

AC46985 - U.S. Bank Trust, National Assn. v. Shuey ("The defendants, George Kenneth Shuey and Mary J. Shuey, appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust, National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as owner trustee for RCF 2 Acquisition Trust. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) improperly rendered summary judgment as to liability in favor of the plaintiff on the basis that the defendants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to their special defense of unclean hands and, thereafter, (2) improperly dismissed their counterclaim for lack of standing because, contrary to the conclusion reached by the court, they were not required to identify their counterclaim as an asset on a bankruptcy petition they filed in 2012. We affirm the judgment and remand this case for the purpose of setting a new sale date.")

AC47420 - Capital for Change, Inc. v. Wall Street Associates, LLC ("In this commercial foreclosure action, the defendants, Wall Street Associates, LLC (Wall Street Associates), and Ganga Duleep, appeal following the trial court's judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Capital for Change, Inc. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly rendered summary judgment as to liability only in favor of the plaintiff because the court (1) improperly concluded as a matter of law that the defendants could not prevail with respect to their special defense alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (2) failed to construe their special defense alleging a CUTPA violation as alleging unclean hands. We dismiss the appeal as to Duleep and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


New OLR Reports

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6316

The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has recently published the following new reports on their website:

Convenience of the Employer Rule - 2025-R-0067 - What is the convenience of the employer rule (i.e. convenience rule) and how does it apply in Connecticut? What is the status of (1) New Hampshire’s legal challenge to Massachusetts’ temporary convenience rule and (2) New Jersey’s income tax credit for taxpayers who successfully challenge another state’s convenience rule?

Income Tax on Long- and Short-Term Capital Gains - 2025-R-0065 - What are the income tax rates that apply to long- and short-term capital gains in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the six New England states? This report updates OLR Report 2021-R-0007.

Mandated Standardized Testing, Performance and Accountability in Connecticut K-12 Education - 2025-R-0050 - This report discusses current statewide standardized testing in Connecticut as well as education-based performance and accountability measures.

State Income Tax Incentives for Active Teachers - 2025-R-0040 - What state income tax incentives do states provide to active teachers? Which of these programs were enacted in the last 10 years?

Before- and After-School Programming Offered by School Districts in Connecticut - 2025-R-0005 - This report discusses the results of a survey of the current landscape of before- and after-school activities throughout Connecticut’s school districts.


Connecticut Law Journal - May 13, 2025

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6315

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 46, for May 13, 2025 is now available.

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 351: Orders (Pages 926 - 930)
  • Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 232: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 520 - 617)
  • Volume 232: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 904)
  • Volume 232: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Law Library Hours: May 12th to May 16th

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6314

Monday, May 12th

  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Tuesday, May 13th

  • Torrington Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, May 14th

  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m
  • Danbbury Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.

Thursday, May 15th

  • Torrington Law Library is closed.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m

Friday, May 16th

  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.


Contract Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6313

AC47490 - Lombardi v. Westport (“The plaintiff, Kenneth Lombardi, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the town of Westport. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim alleging that the defendant breached the terms of a pension plan. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.)


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6312

AC47206 - One Eighty-Five Stagg Associates v. Linwood Avenue III, LLC (Negligence; motion for directed verdict; sufficiency of evidence; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) granting the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the basis that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence in support of its claims, and (2) ordering the redaction of certain statements contained in a documentary exhibit presented by the plaintiff. We agree with the plaintiff with respect to both claims and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6309

AC48082 - 62-64 Bank Street, LLC v. Amelio ("In this summary process appeal, the self-represented defendant, Carmine Amelio, appeals from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, 62-64 Bank Street, LLC, as well as from the court's denial of his motion to reargue. On October 11, 2024, the plaintiff moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that it is (1) jurisdictionally late pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-35 (b) and/or (2) moot because the defendant is no longer in possession of the premises at issue. On February 5, 2025, we denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss and indicated that an opinion would follow. This opinion sets forth the reasoning for our decision. . . .

The motion to dismiss is denied. In this opinion the other judges concurred.")

AC47702 - ECR 2 LLC v. Thompson ("In this summary process action, the defendant, Raschid Thompson, appeals from the judgment of possession, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, ECR 2 LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) violated his constitutional right to due process by denying his motion for a continuance of the trial date and refusing to consider his motion to preclude evidence and testimony that had not previously been disclosed by the plaintiff; (2) applied the wrong legal standard in rejecting his special defense of equitable nonforfeiture; and (3) erred in rejecting his special defense that he had a right to cure, and did cure, his nonpayment of rent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6311

AC47205 - Sonthonnax v. Xing ("The defendant, Longbao Xing, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Mehdi H. Sonthonnax. On appeal the defendant claims that the court improperly based its financial awards on a clearly erroneous factual finding with respect to the plaintiff’s income. We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for a new trial on all financial orders.")

AC47372 - Mathews v. Mathews ("In this postdissolution matter, the self-represented plaintiff, Walden H. Mathews, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for contempt filed by the defendant, Susan M. Mathews, and denying the motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion for contempt regarding the disposition of personal property located in the basement of the marital residence and (2) granted the defendant’s motion for contempt regarding a court order that obligated him to escrow $15,000 with the defendant’s counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - May 6, 2025

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6307

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 45, for May 6, 2025 is now available.

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 351 Conn. Replacement Pages 363 - 363
  • Volume 351: Orders (Pages 924 - 926)
  • Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 232: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 353 - 519)
  • Volume 232: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
  • Volume 232: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Law Library Hours: May 2nd to May 9th

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6306

Friday, May 2nd

  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Danbury Law Library is closed.

Monday, May 5th

  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m
  • Danbury Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. through 4:15 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, May 6th

  • Torrington Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.

Wednesday, May 7th

  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m.
  • Danbury Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.

Thursday, May 8th

  • Torrington Law Library is closed.
  • Danbury Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Friday, May 9th

  • New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6305

AC47140 - Ready v. New Canaan (“The plaintiffs, Scott Ready and Veronica Ready, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, the town of New Canaan, as to the plaintiffs’ complaint alleging breach of contract. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claim sounded in tort rather than in breach of contract and, therefore, was barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity. We reverse the judgment of the court.”)


Workers’ Compensation Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6304

AC46781 - Pelc v. Southington Dental Associates, P.C. (“In this attorney’s fees dispute, the appellant, the Law Offices of Levine & Levine, appeals from the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board), which affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge denying the appellant’s motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for a stay of proceedings, and continuing a formal hearing to take evidence on the question of how to allocate an escrowed attorney’s fee between the appellant and the appellee, Walker, Feigenbaum & Cantarella Law Group, LLC. On appeal, the appellant argues that (1) the board improperly affirmed the administrative law judge’s conclusion that an alleged violation of General Statutes § 1-84b (b) could not serve as a basis for denying the appellee quantum meruit recovery of a portion of the escrowed attorney’s fee; (2) the board improperly affirmed the administrative law judge’s conclusion that the appellant lacked an enforceable award of attorney’s fees pursuant to General Statutes § 31-327 (a);4 (3) the entire Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) should have disqualified itself from hearing these proceedings; and (4) the board overlooked the administrative law judge’s alleged violation of the appellant’s right to be heard and concomitant violation of the appellant’s due process rights. We dismiss the appeal as to the appellant’s first claim and affirm the decision of the board in all other respects.”)


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6303

AC46939 - Michaud v. Travel Indemnity Co. (“The plaintiff, Yvonne Michaud, appeals following the trial court’s denial of the application to vacate an arbitration award she filed in her pending civil action against the defendant, Travelers Indemnity Company. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court, Buckley, J., improperly failed to vacate the arbitration award in accordance with General Statutes § 52-418 because, contrary to the conclusions of the court, the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law when she granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff’s complaint of age discrimination in violation of General Statutes § 46a-60 (b) (1). Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law ‘‘by failing to consider the evidence explaining why [her] objection to the motion for summary judgment was filed late,’’ ‘‘by granting summary judgment where the defendant had not satisfied its burden in establishing its entitlement to summary judgment as to the pay raise and bonus denials,’’ and by concluding, nonetheless, that the ‘‘plaintiff could not establish [that she suffered] an adverse employment action.’’ We cannot reach the merits of the claims the plaintiff has raised on appeal, however, because the court’s denial of the application to vacate the arbitration award, in the context of this case, is not an appealable final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”)