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 - June 18, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3535

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 51, for June 18, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 331 Conn. Replacement Pages 669 - 672
  • Volume 332: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 67)
  • Volume 332: Orders (Pages 901 - 904)
  • Volume 332: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 190: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 589 - 693)
  • Volume 190: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


2019 Major Public Acts

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3532

The Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has made available its Major Public Acts report for the 2019 legislative session:

These summaries, composed by the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) with the assistance of the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), briefly describe the most significant, far-reaching, and publicly debated acts adopted by the General Assembly in its 2019 regular session. Acts that the secretary of the state has assigned a public act (PA) or special act (SA) number are identified by that number; otherwise, we refer to the bill or resolution number.

Not all provisions of the acts are included. More detailed summaries can be found at the OLR website.


Law Library Hours Update - June 17th - June 20th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3530

Monday, June 17th

  • New London Law Library is closed from 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • Stamford Law Library is closed for the day.

Tuesday, June 18th

  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.

Thursday, June 20th

  • Danbury Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.

Friday, June 21st

  • New Britain Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.


Habeas Supreme Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3531

SC20137 - Henning v. Commissioner of Correction (Two habeas petitions; first petition dismissed with prejudice on the basis of petitioner’s purported refusal to appear at trial; “The second habeas petition, which is the subject of this appeal, alleges, among other things, that the state deprived the petitioner of his due process right to a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, which require the state to correct any testimony by a state’s witness when the state knew or should have known that that testimony was materially false or misleading. More specifically, the petitioner claims that his right to due process was violated by virtue of the state’s failure to correct the trial testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee, that a red substance on a towel found in the victim’s home had tested positive for blood when, in fact, no such test had been conducted, and, further, a test of the substance conducted in connection with the present case proved negative for blood. The habeas court, Sferrazza, J., rejected all of the petitioner’s claims, including his claim concerning Lee’s testimony about the towel, and this appeal followed. We agree with the petitioner that, contrary to the determination of the habeas court, he is entitled to a new trial due to the state’s failure to alert the trial court and the petitioner that Lee’s testimony was incorrect, and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

SC20139 - Henning v. State ("In a separate opinion issued today, we have concluded, contrary to the determination of the habeas court, that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus granting him a new trial because the state deprived him of a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny by failing to correct certain incorrect trial testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee. See Henning v. Commissioner of Correction, 331 Conn. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2019). Because our opinion in that case awarding the petitioner a new trial renders moot the petitioner's appeal from the denial of his petition for a new trial, we must dismiss the present appeal. See, e.g., State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478, 486–87, 949 A.2d 460 (2008) (appeal is moot, and therefore must be dismissed, when, because of events occurring during pendency of appeal, appellate court cannot afford any practical relief to appellant).

The appeal is dismissed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.")

SC20136 - Birch v. Commissioner of Correction (Conviction of felony murder and conviction affirmed in appeal; two habeas petitions- first denied; “The second petition, which is the subject of this appeal, alleged, among other things, that the state deprived the petitioner of a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, which require the state to correct any testimony that it knows or should know is materially false or misleading. More specifically, the petitioner claims that his right to due process was violated because the assistant state’s attorney (prosecutor) failed to correct certain testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee, concerning a red substance on a towel found in the victim’s home that, according to Lee, had tested positive for blood. In fact, no such test had been conducted, and, moreover, a test of the substance that was done for purposes of the present case proved negative for blood. The habeas court, Sferrazza, J., rejected all of the petitioner’s claims, including his claim with respect to Lee’s testimony about the towel, and this appeal followed. Because we agree with the petitioner that, contrary to the conclusion of the habeas court, he is entitled to a new trial due to the state’s failure to alert the trial court and the petitioner that Lee’s testimony was incorrect, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

SC20138 - Birch v. State ("In a separate opinion issued today, we have concluded, contrary to the determination of the habeas court, that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus granting him a new trial because the state deprived him of a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny by failing to correct certain incorrect trial testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee. See Birch v. Commissioner of Correction, 331 Conn. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2019). Because our opinion in that case awarding the petitioner a new trial renders moot the petitioner's appeal from the denial of his petition for a new trial, we must dismiss the present appeal. See, e.g., State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478, 486–87, 949 A.2d 460 (2008) (appeal is moot, and therefore must be dismissed, when, because of intervening events during pendency of appeal, appellate court cannot afford appellant any practical relief).

The appeal is dismissed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3529

AC40332 - Casablanca v. Casablanca ("In this marital dissolution action brought by the plaintiff, Hector L. Casablanca, the defendant, Anolan Casablanca, appeals from the judgment of the trial court resolving certain postjudgment motions. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by (1) granting the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendant to execute the plaintiff's proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and (2) granting the plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude the defendant from offering parol evidence in support of her motion to open the dissolution judgment. We conclude, contrary to the decision of the trial court, that the provision of the dissolution settlement agreement at issue in this case is ambiguous. Thus, we determine that the court should have considered extrinsic evidence of, and made additional factual findings regarding, the parties' intent in agreeing to this provision before it denied the defendant's motion to open the judgment and adjudicated the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendant to sign the proposed QDRO. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court and remand this case for further proceedings.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3527

AC41515 - State v. Abdus-Sabur (Murder; criminal possession of firearm; sufficiency of evidence; "The defendant, Ismail H. Abdus-Sabur, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). The defendant claims on appeal that (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the specific intent to kill, as required for the crime of murder, (2) the trial court improperly denied his request for a third-party culpability instruction, and (3) that the court improperly admitted evidence of his gang affiliation. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41111 - State v. Crespo (Violation of probation; "The defendant, Anthony Crespo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding him in violation of probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly overruled an objection predicated on the right to confront adverse witnesses without making the requisite finding of good cause, (2) the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss due to the imposition of allegedly inconsistent conditions of probation, (3) the court improperly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978), (4) the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for judicial disqualification and (5) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the court's finding that the defendant violated a condition of his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41780 - State v. Thompson (Conspiracy to commit robbery in first degree; robbery in first degree; kidnapping in first degree; "The defendant, Earl V. Thompson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence. In this appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his motion. We conclude that, in the motion to correct considered by the trial court, the defendant challenged only the validity of his conviction and not his sentence or the sentencing proceeding, and, therefore, the court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3526

SC20043 - Presidential Village, LLC v. Perkins (Summary process; motion to dismiss; "This summary process action concerns the degree of specificity required in the pretermination notice that, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), must be provided to a tenant who resides in federally subsidized housing before the landlord may commence an eviction proceeding against that tenant. Specifically, the issue presented is whether a pretermination notice asserting nonpayment of rent as the ground for the proposed termination of the tenancy is jurisdictionally defective if it includes either rent charges that cannot serve as a basis for termination of the tenancy under state summary process law or undesignated charges for obligations other than rent. The trial court concluded that the inclusion of both types of charges renders the notice jurisdictionally defective. The Appellate Court concluded that state law is irrelevant to the legal sufficiency of such a notice, and that the inclusion of charges other than for rent is not a material defect under federal law. Presidential Village, LLC v. Perkins, 176 Conn. App. 493, 500, 506, 170 A.3d 701 (2017).

The defendant tenant, Tonya Perkins, appeals, upon our grant of certification, from the Appellate Court's judgment reversing the judgment of the trial court dismissing the summary process action initiated by the plaintiff landlord, Presidential Village, LLC. We conclude that the inclusion of undesignated charges for obligations other than rent rendered the notice jurisdictionally defective. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Court's judgment.")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3528

AC39397 - Woodbury-Correa v. Reflexite Corp. (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board (1) exceeded its authority by making new factual findings that contradict the findings made by the commissioner, and (2) erred in affirming the commissioner’s denial of the motion to preclude the defendant from contesting liability for the plaintiff’s repetitive trauma injuries. We agree with both claims and reverse the decision of the board... On February 24, 2014, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294c (b), the plaintiff filed a motion to preclude the defendant from contesting liability for her repetitive trauma injuries. Nearly one year later, on January 5, 2015, the defendant filed a written objection to the plaintiff’s motion on the ground that it had filed a form 43 in a timely manner.”)


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3525

SC20047 - Geriatrics, Inc. v. McGee ("The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court insofar as it rendered judgment in the defendant’s favor on counts alleging fraudulent transfer under CUFTA and unjust enrichment. We conclude that the trial court, in rejecting the plaintiff's CUFTA claim, improperly failed to consider and apply agency principles when it decided that Helen's assets had been transferred by a 'third party,' the defendant, and not by the debtor, Helen. We further conclude that, in light of certain unrebutted evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. Therefore, we reverse in part and affirm in part the trial court's judgment.")


Connecticut Law Journal - June 11, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3524

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 50, for June 11, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 331: Connecticut Reports (Pages 816 - 863)
  • Volume 331: Orders (Pages 931 - 933)
  • Volume 331: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 190: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 449 - 588)
  • Volume 190: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 904)
  • Volume 190: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Law Library Hours Update - June 10th - June 14th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3522

Wednesday, June 12th

  • Hartford Law Library will be open until 3:30 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library will open at 1:00 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library will be open until 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, June 13th

  • New London Law Library will be open until 1:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library will be open until 1:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library will be open until 1:00 p.m.
  • Stamford Law Library will be open until 1:00 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library will be closed.

Friday, June 14th

  • Torrington Law Library will be open until 2:00 p.m.


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3523

AC41830, AC41889 - In re Anaishaly C. (Claim that there was no evidence that respondents' use of marijuana affected their ability to parent, and that because law concerning criminalization of marijuana had changed, that change had to be reflected in law concerning child protection. “The respondents contend that the court improperly concluded that (1) they failed to achieve the requisite degree of personal rehabilitation required by General Statutes § 17a-112, and (2) termination of their parental rights was in the best interests of the children. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3521

AC41224 - Outing v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in concluding that his trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance in failing (1) to properly investigate and present an alibi defense, (2) to properly investigate and rebut the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the murder at issue, and (3) to adequately preserve an issue regarding expert testimony on eyewitness identification. The petitioner also claims that the court erred in concluding that his appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue, on direct appeal, of the trial court’s refusal to permit surrebuttal evidence. Finally, the petitioner claims that the court incorrectly determined that he had not met his burden of proof regarding his claim of actual innocence. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC41750 - Jordan v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner’s sole claim on appeal is that the habeas court improperly dismissed his claim that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, entered into, and subsequently breached, a purported contract with the petitioner to award him risk reduction credit in exchange for his adherence to his offender accountability plan. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC40615- Villafane v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly (1) denied his motions to appoint habeas counsel, and (2) rejected his claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3517

AC39195 - State v. Nalewajk (Possession of narcotics with intent to sell by person who is not drug-dependent; failure to appear in first degree; motion to correct illegal sentence; mootness; "This opinion follows oral argument on this court's own motion to determine whether the present appeal should be dismissed as moot because the defendant, Albert Edward Nalewajk, died during the pendency of his appeal from the dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We conclude that we lack subject matter jurisdiction and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

AC39193, AC39194, AC39196, AC39198, AC39199 - State v. Sanchez (Sale of narcotics by person who is not drug-dependent; possession of narcotics with intent to sell by person who is not drug-dependent; "These appeals all stem from the same legal root with factual differences not pertinent to the common legal issues they present. In each case, the defendant was convicted, following a plea of guilty, of, inter alia, sale of narcotics and/or possession of narcotics with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 21a-278 (b), and was sentenced to a term of incarceration that included the statutorily mandated minimum sentence of five years. In each instance, the court made no finding, nor did the defendant admit, that he was not drug-dependent. Each defendant subsequently filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging, in essence, that his sentence was illegal because, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013), the state was required to plead and prove his lack of drug dependency beyond a reasonable doubt given that it is a fact that would result in a mandatory minimum sentence that would expose the defendant to a higher maximum sentence. The trial court dismissed each motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the defendants appealed to this court. We conclude that, in light of our Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770, 189 A.3d 1184 (2018), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1304, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___ (2019), the defendants' motions to correct no longer present colorable claims of an illegal sentence, and, accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissals of their motions.")

AC39704 - State v. Ramon A. G. (Assault in third degree; criminal violation of protective order; "The defendant, Ramon A. G., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61 and criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly declined to furnish a jury instruction on the defense of personal property with respect to the assault charge and (2) prosecutorial impropriety during closing argument deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3520

AC41025- Rauser v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. ("The plaintiff claims that the board erred in affirming the commissioner’s decision in light of the fact that the commissioner failed to set forth a factual determination with respect to whether, at the time he sustained the injuries for which he sought benefits, he was on the direct route of his business travel. We affirm the decision of the board… Before this court, the plaintiff claims that the board erred in affirming the commissioner’s decision in light of the fact that the commissioner failed to make a factual determination with respect to whether, at the time he sustained the injuries for which he sought benefits, he was on the direct route of his business travel.")


Tort Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3518

SC20025, SC20026, SC20027, SC20028 - Demond v. Project Service, LLC (Negligence, public nuisance; "On appeal, the defendants contend that their contractual undertaking at the service plaza did not create a duty to third-party motorists injured off the service plaza premises by a drunk driver who became intoxicated at the service plaza; the plaintiffs, in their cross appeal, contend that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment on their public nuisance claims. We conclude that the defendants' contractual undertaking did not create a duty to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' public nuisance claims fail as a matter of law. We therefore reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41234 - DeMaria v. City of Bridgeport (Personal injury; "The defendant, the city of Bridgeport, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered plaintiff, Victor DeMaria, for injuries he sustained in a fall that occurred on the defendant's sidewalk. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence certain medical records that had been written by Miriam Vitale, a physician assistant who was the plaintiff's primary care provider at the veterans affairs hospital (hospital) in West Haven, under General Statutes § 52-174 (b). We agree with the defendant that the court improperly admitted the medical records written by Vitale into evidence under § 52-174 (b), and that the defendant was harmed by the court’s error. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.")

AC39859 - Lewis v. Alves ("The self-represented plaintiff, Kacey Lewis, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendants, who are current or former employees of the Connecticut Department of Correction at Cheshire Correctional Institution. Although the plaintiff in his five count complaint, which was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights, on appeal, the plaintiff challenges the rendering of summary judgment only as to three alleged constitutional violations. In particular, the plaintiff claims that the court erroneously rendered summary judgment on the third count of his compliant as to his allegations that he was denied due process when (1) he was not permitted to call a witness at his discretionary hearing and (2) he was assigned an unwanted advocate for that same hearing, who advocated against his interests. The plaintiff also claims that the court erred in his fifth count that he was subjected to improper conditions of confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")




Connecticut Law Journal - June 4, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3515

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 49, for June 4, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 331: Connecticut Reports (Pages 777 - 815)
  • Volume 331: Orders (Pages 929 - 930)
  • Volume 331: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 190: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 296 - 449)
  • Volume 190: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 903)
  • Volume 190: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments


          Juvenile Law Appellate Court Opinion

             by Townsend, Karen

           https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3514

          AC42512 - In re Natalia M. (“On appeal, the respondent claims that the Department of Children and Families (department) violated his rights to due process of law by failing to provide adequate visitation with his child, which, he claims, ultimately led the court to terminate his parental rights after erroneously concluding that the department had made reasonable efforts at reunification, pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (1). The respondent does not claim that the court erred in its conclusion that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. Because the respondent challenges only one of the two bases for the court’s determination that § 17a-112 (j) (1) had been satisfied, we conclude that the respondent’s appeal is moot.”)