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 Update - December 6th - December 13th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3781

Monday, December 9th

  • Middletown Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Tuesday, December 10th

  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Wednesday, December 11th

  • Rockville Law Library closes from 12:45 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.

Thursday, December 12th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
  • New Haven Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3785

AC41677 - Haywood v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly concluded that he was not denied the effective assistance of previous habeas counsel, Attorney Mark Diamond, with respect to Attorney Diamond’s efforts to establish the ineffective assistance of original appellate counsel, Attorney Glenn W. Falk… The petitioner argues in this appeal that Attorney Falk performed deficiently in the petitioner’s direct appeal because, when he addressed in the petition for certification to appeal to our Supreme Court this court’s decision that the petitioner’s robbery conviction should be modified, he failed to include a citation to State v. Sanseverino, 287 Conn. 608, 949 A.2d 1156 (2008) (Sanseverino I), and failed, while the petition for certification was pending in our Supreme Court, to file a motion for reconsideration in this court regarding the modification issue after our Supreme Court officially released its decision in Sanseverino I. He further argues that Attorney Diamond performed deficiently in the petitioner’s first habeas trial because he failed to point out sufficiently Attorney Falk’s errors”.)


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3784

AC40899 - Dombrowski v. New Haven (Denial of motion to open parties' stipulation that settled claims; reviewability of claims not presented to commissioner; settlement contingent upon approval of the city; claim that opening the stipulation not warranted due to failure of offering any evidence of “fraud, misrepresentation, accident, or mistake”; "On appeal, the plaintiff raises a number of claims that, in essence, challenge the propriety of the board’s decision affirming the commissioner’s denial of his motion to open. We affirm the decision of the board.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3783

AC42149 - M. B. v. S. A. ("The self-represented plaintiff, M. B., appeals from the trial court's order denying his application for relief from abuse seeking the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order against the defendant, S. A., whom he alleges has engaged in a 'continuous pattern of stalking and harassment.' Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the court abused its discretion in (1) denying his application for relief from abuse and (2) issuing sanctions against him pursuant to Practice Book § 1-25 for filing a frivolous application for relief from abuse. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42237 - M. B. v. S. A. ("The self-represented plaintiff, M. B., appeals from the trial court's orders, rendered in a child custody action, granting certain postjudgment motions for contempt filed by the defendant, S. A., and awarding her attorney's fees as a sanction against the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the court erred in (1) finding him in contempt for nonpayment of support orders when the support orders were on appeal, (2) prioritizing the resolution of motions for contempt over a simultaneously pending motion pertaining to child visitation (3) failing to consider financial affidavits he had submitted, (4) awarding the defendant attorney's fees in connection with the granted contempt motions, and (5) accepting the defendant's affidavits of fees with incorrect docket numbers. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3782

AC40592 - R.D. Clark & Sons, Inc. v. Clark ("In this case involving the buyout of minority shares of a closely held corporation, the plaintiff, R.D. Clark & Sons, Inc. (corporation), appeals, and the defendant James Clark cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court determining the fair value of those shares, establishing the terms of payment for the purchase of those shares, and awarding attorney's fees to the defendant. On appeal, the corporation asserts that the trial court erred in determining the value of the defendant's shares by (1) not tax affecting the corporation's earnings in analyzing its valuation, (2) not applying a minority discount to the value of the defendant's shares, and awarding the defendant attorney's and expert witness fees and costs, on the ground that the defendant suffered minority oppression at the hands of the plaintiffs, (3) not applying a marketability discount to the value of the defendant's shares, and (4) incorrectly accounting for a certain loan due to the corporation from the defendant and ordering that certain sums be paid to the defendant within thirty days of the date of judgment. On cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by not awarding him attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the value of his shares in the corporation in accordance with the retainer agreement that he had signed with his counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Connecticut Law Journal - December 3, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3780

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 23, for December 3, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 333: Connecticut Reports (Pages 816 - 846)
  • Volume 333: Orders (Pages 946 - 948)
  • Volume 333: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 194: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 598 - 689)
  • Volume 194: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 904)
  • Volume 194: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3777

AC41379 - State v. Joseph ("The defendant, Kenyon Joseph, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault of a correction officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c (a). On appeal, the defendant asserts that the jury's rejection of his affirmative defense of mental disease or defect was not reasonably supported by the evidence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41597 - State v. Salters ("The defendant, Gaylord Salters, appeals from the judgment of the trial court . . . denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence because the sentencing court substantially relied on the state's materially inaccurate information at sentencing, (2) the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard regarding the reliability of testimonial evidence, (3) the use of materially inaccurate information at the defendant's sentencing hearing was structural error, and (4) the prosecutor's use of the allegedly inaccurate information constituted prosecutorial impropriety. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41053 - State v. Michael T. ("The defendant, Michael T., appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (2), five counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), two counts of unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 (a), criminal attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-59 (a) (2), and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the forensic interviews of the two minor victims, (2) improperly denied his motions for a judgment of acquittal with respect to two counts of risk of injury to a child and (3) improperly precluded the defendant from presenting evidence of third-party culpability. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of conviction.")


Tort Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3778

SC20129 - Osborn v. Waterbury (Negligence; public school playground supervision; "This appeal arises from an action filed by the plaintiffs, Tatayana Osborn (child), a minor child, by and through her mother, Tacarra Smith, alleging negligence on the part of the defendant city of Waterbury (city) and the defendant Waterbury Board of Education (board) for injuries sustained by the child during an altercation with other students during recess at a Waterbury public school. In this certified appeal, we must determine whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that expert testimony was necessary to establish the standard of care in this negligence action. We conclude that, under the facts of the present case, expert testimony was not necessary. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Court's judgment and remand the case to that court for consideration of the remaining issues on appeal.")

AC41801 - Stevens v. Khalily (Intentional infliction of emotional distress; "The plaintiff, Eric Stevens, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants Tiffany Khalily and Edward Khalily, which was based on lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process in that the plaintiff did not serve the defendants at their last known addresses. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly relied on 'conclusory and self-serving affidavits of the defendants which were insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service.' We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


New Office of Legislative Research Reports

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3773

The Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following reports:

OLR Backgrounder: Public School Residency Requirements- 2019-R-0271 - This report summarizes Connecticut’s public school residency law and applies it to different student living situations.

Mandatory Property Tax Relief for Homeowners- 2019-R-0205 - Describe the property tax relief municipalities must provide to homeowners (i.e. mandatory programs). This report updates OLR Report 2012-R-0104.

Landlords' Responsibilities for Abandoned Property - 2019-R-0234 - Summarize (1) state laws regarding a landlord’s responsibilities for property abandoned by residential tenants and (2) the rationale for such laws.

Connecticut E-Cigarette Laws - 2019-R-0279 - This report describes Connecticut laws related to the regulation of electronic nicotine delivery systems and vapor products (hereafter referred to as "e-cigarettes"). It updates OLR Report 2018-R-0040.

Student Loan Debt Legislation in Connecticut and Other States- 2019-R-0262 - This report describes recent student loan debt legislation in Connecticut and other states.


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3775

AC42678 - In re Cameron W. (Termination of parental rights petition pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (E), on the ground that the respondent failed to rehabilitate; “The respondent claims that the court improperly found that (1) she was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts and (2) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her child. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”).


Connecticut Law Journal - November 26, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3774

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 22, for November 26, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 333: Connecticut Reports (Pages 731 - 816)
  • Volume 333: Orders (Pages 942 - 945)
  • Volume 333: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 194: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 473 - 597)
  • Volume 194: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
  • Volume 194: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3772

AC41186 - Saunders v. Commissioner of Correction (Dismissal of petition on the grounds “his due process claims, predicated on allegations that he was incompetent to stand trial and that the state and the trial court failed to comply with General Statutes § 54-56d, were procedurally defaulted. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed the petition because (1) his due process claims were not subject to the procedural default rule, or (2) alternatively, he sufficiently pleaded cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural defaults and allow judicial review of his claims. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court”.)

AC42049 - Watts v. Commissioner of Correction (“In his two underlying criminal cases, the petitioner rejected a plea offer from the court, Clifford, J., to resolve the two cases because he allegedly was not properly advised of the charges, defenses, and best course of action regarding the offer, and, therefore, was unaware of ‘the consequences of rejecting [the offer].’ Following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to ninety-five years in prison, the functional equivalent of a life sentence.1 The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged (1) that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding the plea offer he rejected, and (2) that his sentence violated the eighth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, §§ 8 and 9, of the constitution of Connecticut. The habeas court denied the petitioner’s first claim on the grounds that trial counsel’s representation was not deficient and that the petitioner failed to prove prejudice. The court dismissed the cruel and unusual punishment claims ‘without prejudice,’ reasoning that, if it ruled on the merits of the claim, it would be bound to follow this court’s decision in State v. Williams-Bey, 167 Conn. App. 744, 144 A.3d 467, cert. granted, 326 Conn. 920, 169 A.3d 793 (2017), which, at the time, was under review by our Supreme Court”).

AC41052 - Crawley v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas appeal “dismissing in part and denying in part his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the court improperly rejected his claims of ineffective assistance on the part of both his criminal trial counsel and his first habeas counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court... This appeal concerns the petitioner’s convictions on two counts of possession of narcotics with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b)”)



Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3766

AC42330 - State v. Ramos (Motion to correct illegal sentence; subject matter jurisdiction; "The self-represented defendant, Jose E. Ramos, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. In 2016, following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. Thereafter, the court, A. Hadden, J., imposed a sentence of sixty years of incarceration. In his motion to correct, filed on September 5, 2018, the defendant asked the court to reverse or vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over him because he "is not the defendant named in the charging instrument." The defendant also presented the court with a memorandum of law that, in his view, supported his claim. The court, Strackbein, J., heard argument on the motion on October 12, 2018. In its October 16, 2018 memorandum of decision, the court, noting that the defendant's arguments in support of the motion generally were incomprehensible, nonetheless accurately distilled his arguments to be his assertion that he is a "sovereign citizen," and, therefore, his conviction was illegal because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The court reasoned that the arguments raised by the defendant in the motion to correct did not challenge the legality of the sentence imposed, assert a violation of his double jeopardy rights, or implicate any of the established criteria on which it could afford him any relief with respect to the sentence imposed. The court denied the motion to correct, and this appeal followed.

On the basis of our review of the record and the arguments advanced by the defendant before this court, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the defendant's motion to correct was not the proper procedural vehicle to raise the claim set forth therein because, properly construed, it attacks the validity of the defendant's underlying conviction. We conclude, however, that the court should have dismissed, rather than denied, the motion. As we previously have determined, a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, should dismiss claims raised in a motion to correct that do not challenge the legality of the sentence imposed or disposition made during a sentencing proceeding. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 192 Conn. App. 147, 155, ___ A.3d ___ (2019); State v. Walker, 187 Conn. App. 776, 794–95, 204 A.3d 38, cert. denied, 331 Conn. 914, 204 A.3d 703 (2019); State v. Gemmell, 155 Conn. App. 789, 791, 110 A.3d 1234, cert. denied, 316 Conn. 913, 111 A.3d 886 (2015); State v. Smith, 150 Conn. App. 623, 636–37, 92 A.3d 975, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 904, 99 A.3d 1169 (2014).

The form of the judgment is improper, the judgment denying the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment dismissing the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3771

AC42215 - Sempey v. Stamford Hospital ("The plaintiff, Merinda J. Sempey, a former employee of the defendant, Stamford Hospital, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following the court's decision striking all four counts of the plaintiff's operative complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court committed error because she sufficiently had pleaded causes of action for wrongful discharge, defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3770

AC38614 - T & M Building Co. v. Hastings ("The plaintiff, T & M Building Co., Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, William Hastings. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) determining that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant violated the statute of frauds, (2) rendering judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, and (3) rendering judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3769

AC41439 - Asselin & Vieceli Partnership, LLC v. Washburn ("The defendant, Steven T. Washburn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his demand for a trial de novo following an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, Asselin & Vieceli Partnership, LLC. The trial court also confirmed the arbitration award upon an application filed by the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly confirmed the arbitration award because the arbitrator had failed to take an oath required by General Statutes § 52-414 (d), the plaintiff failed to file certain required documents required by General Statutes § 52-421 (a) and the arbitrator exceeded her powers or imperfectly executed them in violation of General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4).We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment granting the plaintiff's application to confirm the arbitration award.")


Legal Malpractice Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3768

AC41606 - Dubinsky v. Riccio ("In 2016, the plaintiff, David Dubinsky, brought a civil action against the defendant attorney, Joyce Riccio, in which he set forth claims sounding in legal malpractice and breach of contract. The plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant with respect to the legal malpractice count of his complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")