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.

Law Library Hours: February 7th to February 14th

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6198

Friday, February 7th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed from 1:00 p.m. through 3:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Monday, February 10th

  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, February 11th

  • New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is open from 9:30-4:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, February 12th

  • All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed for the holiday.

Thursday, February 13th

  • New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
  • Hartford Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Friday, February 14th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed from 1:00 p.m. through 3:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.



Civil Rights Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6197

AC46736 - Marciniszyn v. Board of Education ("The plaintiffs, Joshua Marciniszyn, who is self-represented, and his minor child D, by and through Marciniszyn as next friend, appeal from the trial court's denial of their petition for a bill of discovery (petition). On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the court erred when it determined that they failed to establish probable cause for their claims that the defendants, the Board of Education of the Town of Southington and the town of Southington, had discriminated against D in violation of several federal civil rights laws. They also argue that the court improperly granted the defendants a continuance to file an objection to their petition and improperly limited the presentation of testimony at the hearing on the petition. We conclude that Marciniszyn lacked standing to bring this action in his individual capacity. We therefore reverse in part the court's judgment and remand the case with direction to dismiss the petition as to Marciniszyn in his individual capacity. We dismiss the appeal as to D because Marciniszyn lacks authority, as a self-represented nonattorney, to proceed in a representative capacity on D's behalf before this court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6196

AC46868 - Eldridge v. Hospital of Central Connecticut (“The plaintiff, Kimberly Eldridge, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the Hospital of Central Connecticut, with respect to her claims under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The plaintiff raises two claims. First, with respect to her allegation of disability discrimination, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist with respect to whether the defendant’s reasons for the termination of her employment were pretextual in nature. Second, in connection with her claim that the defendant failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disability, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist with respect to whether she made a good faith request for an accommodation. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6195

AC46773 - Petrocelli v. Shelton ("In this action brought, in part, pursuant to the state highway defect statute, General Statutes § 13a-144, the defendant, the state of Connecticut, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to dismiss the claims asserted against it by the plaintiff, Jennifer Petrocelli, on the ground that they are barred by sovereign immunity. On appeal, the state claims that the court improperly denied the motion to dismiss because it did not have a duty to maintain and repair the area where the alleged injury occurred and, thus, is entitled to sovereign immunity. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6194

AC46938 - Camozzi v. Pierce ("In this action regarding title to a 1.46 acre parcel of land (disputed parcel), the plaintiff, Myron Camozzi, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Eric Pierce, on the plaintiff's complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging trespass and theft and on the defendant's counterclaim alleging that he is the owner of the disputed parcel. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found (1) that the chain of title to 105 Westbrook Road in Deep River (property) included the disputed parcel, and (2) that no evidence other than the acreage call indicates that the disputed parcel was severed from the property. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")


Civil Protection Order Appellate Court Opinions

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6193

AC47655 - J. C.-S. v. J. G. ("The self-represented plaintiff, J. C.-S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his application for a civil protection order against the defendant, J. G., pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-16a. The plaintiff’s claims on appeal distill into two parts, namely, whether the court (1) erred in ruling, in the absence of a motion for protective order, that the defendant and a nonparty witness were not required to testify or produce documents pursuant to subpoenas that had issued and had been served, and (2) violated the plaintiff’s right to self-representation by limiting the manner in which he was permitted to present evidence in support of his application. We decline to address the merits of these claims because the plaintiff has failed to provide this court with an adequate record. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC47525 - S. S. v. J. S. ("The defendant, J. S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion filed by the self-represented plaintiff, S. S., to extend a restraining order issued against him pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-15. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in extending the order because there was insufficient evidence that, at the time the plaintiff sought the extension, the defendant posed a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury to her. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6192

SC20849 - State v. Adam P. (Five counts of sexual assault in the first degree; four counts of risk of injury to a child; four counts of risk of injury to a child; violation of due process rights; “We conclude that we must overrule Daniel W. E., to the extent that it modified our constancy of accusation doctrine set forth in State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 304–305, 677 A.2d 917 (1996), so that jurors understand more precisely the parameters for when and how they may consider a victim’s delayed reporting when assessing the victim’s credibility. Further, we hold that the alleged instructional error was nonconstitutional in nature and that, based on the charges against the defendant and the record in its entirety, it was not reasonably probable that the trial court’s Daniel W. E. instruction misled the jury in arriving at its verdict. Finally, we reject the defendant’s second claim and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting D to testify that the defendant had told her that he played the same sexual ‘games’ with A that he had with the victims. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)


Connecticut Treatise Index - 2025 Update

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6191

The Connecticut Treatise Index organizes the Connecticut treatises and practical guides available in our law libraries into thirty-two topics.

Recent updates to the index include the following titles:

  • Encyclopedia of Connecticut Causes of Action (2024)
  • Connecticut Foreclosures 14th
  • Connecticut Employment Law 7th
  • A Practical Guide to Estate Planning in CT 3d


Connecticut Law Journal - February 4, 2025

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6190

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 32, for February 4, 2025 is now available.

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 350 Conn. Replacement Pages 85 - 85
  • Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 186 - 212)
  • Volume 351: Orders (Pages 903 - 904)
  • Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 230: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 437 - 574)
  • Volume 230: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 902)
  • Volume 230: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6189

AC 47376 - In re Juliany T. ("The respondent father, Julio T., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Juliany. The respondent raises three claims on appeal, each of which emanates from his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, in violation of his due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution and article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution. First, he claims that his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance ‘‘was of such magnitude that it created structural error as set forth in United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984),’’ and is therefore per se reversible error. Second, he claims that he has a due process right to a hybrid habeas fact-finding proceeding in the trial court to further develop the record as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because ‘‘the procedures available to him to vindicate his right to effective assistance of counsel are inadequate.’’ He further claims that, if he does not have a due process right to a hybrid habeas factfinding proceeding, this court should exercise its supervisory authority to create one. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and decline the respondent’s request that we exercise our supervisory authority.")


Law Library Hours: January 31st to February 7th

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6188

Friday, January 31st

  • New Britain Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.

Monday, February 3rd

  • New Britain Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, February 4th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
  • New Britain Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m. and closes at 4:45 p.m.
  • New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
  • Hartford Law Library is closed from 2:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 9:45 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, February 5th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Thursday, February 6th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • Middletown Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.
  • New Haven Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Friday, February 7th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed from 1:00 p.m. through 3:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6187

SC21013 - McCarter & English, LLP v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. ("This case, which comes to us upon our acceptance of a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, requires us to consider whether a law firm can recover punitive damages from a former client for the client's breach of contract. We have long recognized that the principal purpose of remedies in a breach of contract action is to provide compensation for loss. See, e.g., Vines v. Orchard Hills, Inc., 181 Conn. 501, 506, 435 A.2d 1022 (1980). As a result, damages for breach of contract are traditionally limited to compensatory damages. See, e.g., id., 506–507. Connecticut is unique among the states because common-law punitive damages are limited to litigation expenses that may also serve to compensate the plaintiff. See, e.g., Berry v. Loiseau, 223 Conn. 786, 827, 614 A.2d 414 (1992). But we have also recognized that, "in . . . light of the increasing costs of litigation," punitive damages can also "punish and deter wrongful conduct." Id. Consequently, punitive damages are often in tension with the purpose of damages in contract law because, "[e]ven if the breach [of contract] is deliberate, it is not necessarily blameworthy." Patton v. Mid-Continent Systems, Inc., 841 F.2d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 1988). In light of this tension, we tread carefully when determining whether to broaden the scope of a client's potential liability to its attorney when that attorney brings a breach of contract action against the client. After consideration of the common law of this state and other jurisdictions, and the relevant policy implications, we agree with, and adopt, the rule followed by the majority of jurisdictions and the Restatements: a law firm may not recover common-law punitive damages for its client's breach of contract unless it pleads and proves the existence of an independent tort for which punitive damages are available.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6186

AC 46883 - Cardona v. Padilla ("The plaintiff, Priscilla I. Cardona, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the defendant, Raymond J. Padilla, who lives in Florida, primary physical custody of their minor child (child) and ordering visitation for the plaintiff with the child. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in making its custody and visitation orders and by issuing an order pursuant to Practice Book § 25-26 (g) when neither party has filed excessive motions or pleadings in this case. We agree with the plaintiff as to the court’s visitation order and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court in part and remand the case for a new hearing on visitation.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6184

AC47132 - Park Seymour Associates, LLC v. Hartford ("The plaintiffs, Park Seymour Associates, LLC (Seymour), and Park Squire Associates, LLC (Squire), appeal from the judgments rendered in favor of the defendants, the city of Hartford (city) and the city's Board of Assessment Appeals, after a consolidated trial to the court in these actions brought as municipal tax appeals pursuant to General Statutes § 12-119. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court's judgments in favor of the defendants were improper in that the court made a clearly erroneous finding that the plaintiffs had not proven the existence of tax abatement agreements. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC46674 - Pascual v. Perry ("The plaintiffs, Alexa Pascual and Freiny Francisco, appeal, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Tammy K. Perry, on the count of her counterclaim alleging adverse possession. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erroneously concluded that (1) the defendant's and her predecessor in title's use of the disputed area was open and visible; (2) the defendant's predecessor in title's possession of the disputed area was hostile; and (3) the defendant could tack her predecessor in title's period of adverse possession onto her own, and, additionally, (4) the court erred in failing to find that the defendant's adverse possession rights were extinguished by the judgment of foreclosure rendered against the plaintiffs' predecessor in title. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6185

AC46744 - Lopez v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion by denying him certification to appeal; (2) improperly concluded that the petitioner’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present the testimony of Jose Lopez III (Lopez III), the petitioner’s son, at his criminal trial; and (3) improperly concluded that the petitioner was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to investigate and present the testimony of Zeequan Groves at his criminal trial. We agree with the petitioner that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying him certification to appeal. We disagree with the habeas court’s analysis of the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to Lopez III, but we do not, in this opinion, disturb its judgment denying the petitioner relief on that claim. Instead, we remand the matter to the habeas court to resolve the factual question of whether, had Lopez III testified at the petitioner’s criminal trial, there is a reasonable probability that his testimony exculpating the petitioner would have been credited by the jury. We retain jurisdiction over this appeal pending the remand and subsequent appellate proceedings. In light of our remand order on the petitioner’s second claim, we leave his third claim for another day.”)

AC46554 - Mitchell v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal; (2) violated his constitutional right to due process by denying him a full and fair hearing; (3) improperly granted summary judgment for the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, on his claim that his kidnapping conviction violated the state and federal constitutions because the criminal trial court failed to instruct the jury in accordance with State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008); and (4) erred in concluding that his prior habeas counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance. We dismiss the appeal.”)


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6183

AC47066 - Ramos v. State (“The self-represented plaintiff, Jose Ramos, who previously had been convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and sentenced to sixty years of imprisonment, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action against the defendant, the state of Connecticut (state), in which he sought declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, and to have his conviction vacated and a new criminal trial. On appeal, he claims that the court improperly (1) granted the state’s motion to dismiss the action and (2) did so without oral argument on the motion. We conclude that the plaintiff’s claims are inadequately briefed and, thus, decline to review them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.”)


Connecticut Law Journal - January 28, 2025

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6182

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 31, for January 28, 2025 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 143 - 186)
  • Volume 351: Orders (Pages 902 - 902)
  • Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 230: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 335 - 436)
  • Volume 230: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
  • Volume 230: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6181

SC21024 - 7 Germantown Road, LLC v. Danbury ("This joint public interest appeal, which stems from six individual tax appeals filed in the Superior Court, requires us to determine whether a property owner's failure to timely file an appraisal in accordance with General Statutes (Rev. to 2023) § 12-117a (a) (2), in a tax appeal involving real property assessed at one million dollars or more, implicates the Superior Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the tax appeal. We conclude that the appraisal filing requirement in General Statutes (Rev. to 2023) § 12-117a (a) (2) is not jurisdictional in nature and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the Superior Court.")


Law Library Hours: January 24th to January 31st

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6180

Friday, January 24th

  • Danbury Law Library closes from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library opens at 1:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.

Monday, January 27th

  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • Danbury Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

Tuesday, January 28th

  • New Britain Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, January 29th

  • Rockville Law Library is closed.
  • New London Law Library closes at 2:15 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.

Thursday, January 30th

  • Rockville Law Library is closed.

Friday, January 31st

  • New Britain Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.