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.

Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

AC45885 - Avon v. Sastre (Administrative appeal; "The plaintiffs, the town of Avon (town) and the town manager, Brandon Robertson, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their administrative appeal from the final decision of the defendant Freedom of Information Commission (commission) regarding a complaint filed by the defendant Joseph Sastre. In its final decision, the commission found that the plaintiffs had violated the Freedom of Information Act (act), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq., when they denied Sastre's request for a document (log) related to the resignation in 2019 of the town's police chief, Mark Rinaldo (Chief Rinaldo), and ordered that the town disclose the log pursuant to the act. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly dismissed their appeal from the commission's decision ordering disclosure of the log because (1) the log is not a public record under § 1-200 (5) and, thus, is not subject to disclosure under the act, and (2) even if the log is a public record, it is exempt from disclosure under General Statutes § 1-210 (b) (10) pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. We disagree with the plaintiffs and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

AC45422 - Donald G. v. Commissioner of Correction (“He claims that the court improperly (1) failed to consider two of his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and (2) concluded that his appellate counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to raise claims of prosecutorial impropriety on direct appeal from the petitioner’s criminal conviction. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

AC45508 - Supronowicz v. Eaton (Adverse possesion; "In this action to quiet title alleging ownership by adverse possession, the plaintiffs, Jacek Supronowicz and Iwona Supronowicz, appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants Michael Eaton and Stephanie Hawker. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that they could not establish their claim of adverse possession as a matter of law because they (1) failed to demonstrate that privity existed between themselves and their predecessors in title for purposes of tacking periods of possession, (2) acknowledged the defendants' superior title to the disputed area, and (3) failed to show that their use of the disputed area was exclusive. The plaintiffs assert that genuine issues of material fact remain as to each of these issues and that the court therefore improperly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We agree with the plaintiffs as to each of their claims and, for the reasons that follow, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

AC45845 - Northeast Building Supply, LLC v. Morrill ("The plaintiff, Northeast Building Supply, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying the application for a prejudgment remedy that it filed in accordance with General Statutes § 52-278a et seq. against the defendants, Maureen Morrill, Clifford Jones, Pullman & Comley, LLC, Attorney Irve Goldman, Attorney Bruce Diamond, and the Law Office of Bruce W. Diamond, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in denying its application for a prejudgment remedy when it concluded that (1) collateral estoppel barred the vexatious litigation claims it sought to bring against the defendants and (2) the attorney and law firm defendants—Pullman & Comley, LLC, Goldman, Diamond, and the Law Office of Bruce W. Diamond, LLC—had adequate insurance to secure any judgment that might be rendered against them.

The defendants argue that the court properly denied the plaintiff's application for a prejudgment remedy. They also, for the first time on appeal, raise a jurisdictional claim. They claim that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert the vexatious litigation claims against the defendants because those claims were assigned to the plaintiff from a different entity, Northeast Builders Supply & Home Centers, LLC (Home Centers).The defendants argue that the plaintiff's vexatious litigation claims constitute tort claims that involve alleged personal injuries unique to Home Centers. They further contend that Connecticut law makes clear that such tort claims may not be assigned. Consequently, the defendants maintain that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue its application for a prejudgment remedy.

For the reasons that follow, we agree with the defendants that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the application for a prejudgment remedy and, consequently, that the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to that court with direction to render judgment dismissing the plaintiff's application.")

Petition for New Trial (Criminal) - New research guide

   by Oumano, Emily

A new research guide called Petition for New Trial (Criminal) is posted on our research guides webpage.

It has information about what the purpose of the petition for new trial is, how it is different from the motion for new trial, and what procedures petitioners must follow.

A petition for new trial is a civil proceeding that is distinct from the underlying case it stems from, but the guide focuses on using the petition when the underlying case is a criminal matter. This will expand our offering of Criminal Law Research Guides.