The Connecticut General Assembly has posted a list of new legislation that is effective on January 1, 2018. Each entry includes links to the full text of the public act, the plain English summary from the Office of Legislative Research, and the bill status page.

In addition, you can view current legislation effective from passage. The Connecticut General Assembly also provides an archive of legislation by effective date going back to October 2007.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• New Legislation

AC39006, AC39011- Deane v. Kahn (Declaratory judgment; implied easement; "Since at least 2001, the parties in this case have been engaged in a lengthy legal dispute regarding abutting properties that sit along the bonny banks of the Connecticut River in Lyme. The defendants Amy Day Kahn, Robert Kahn, and John Gorman appeal from the judgment of the trial court finding that an easement exists in favor of the plaintiff, Curtis D. Deane, over the parcels of real property owned by Amy Day Kahn (Kahn property) and Gorman (Gorman property). The defendants' principal claim is that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's ultimate legal conclusion that an easement by implication exists over the Kahn property and, correspondingly, that an easement by deed continues to exist over the Gorman property. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC39921 - State v. Grant ("The defendant, David Grant, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-55 (a) (1) and 53a-55a, and assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) admitted evidence of his involvement in the sale of drugs and (2) permitted the state on redirect examination to inquire as to whether a witness had observed the defendant carrying a firearm on a prior occasion.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC19953 - Corsair Special Situations Fund, L.P. v. Engineered Framing Systems, Inc. (“The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sought this court’s advice as to whether a Connecticut state marshal is entitled to the statutory fee of 15 percent on the amount of the execution ‘for the levy of an execution, when the money is actually collected and paid over, or the debt . . . is secured by the officer’; General Statutes § 52-261 (a) (F); when the marshal properly served the writ of execution on a third party holding a debt owed to the judgment debtor, but the judgment creditor received money from the third party only after a court issued a turnover order.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199b (d), we accepted certification on the following questions from the Second Circuit:

‘(1) Was [intervenor Connecticut State] Marshal [Mark A.] Pesiri entitled to a [15] percent fee under the terms of [§ 52-261 (a) (F)]?

‘(2) In answering the first question, does it matter that the writ was ignored and that the monies that were the subject of the writ were procured only after the judgment creditor, not the marshal, pursued further enforcement proceedings in the courts?’ Corsair Special Situations Fund, L.P. v. Engineered Framing Systems, Inc., 863 F.3d 176, 183 (2d Cir. 2017).

We answer the first question: Yes. We answer the second question: No.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 26, for December 26, 2017 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 327: Connecticut Reports (Pages 338 - 431)
• Volume 327: Orders (Pages 980 - 988)
• Volume 327: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 178: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 820 - 874)
• Volume 178: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 179: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 57)
• Volume 179: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

SC19705 - Francini v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC (Declaratory judgment; easement by necessity; "In this certified appeal, we are tasked with determining whether easements by necessity can be granted for commercial utilities. More specifically, we consider whether an easement that affords ingress and egress to an abutting property can later be expanded, by necessity, for utilities. The plaintiff, William Francini, commenced the present action seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that he is entitled to an easement by necessity for underground utility lines across the property of the named defendant, Goodspeed Airport, LLC, and an injunction permitting use of the easement. The defendant appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed trial court's award of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC19597 - State v. Miranda (Murder; "On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly, (1) failed to strike the testimony of a witness who claimed that guidance from God, rather than his own recollection, had led him to identify the perpetrator in a photographic array, after the court ruled, in the jury’s absence, that this testimony was inadmissible, and (2) permitted the victim’s mother to testify that she had heard that the defendant was connected to the victim’s disappearance. We conclude that the defendant waived his first claim and failed to preserve his second claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Concurrence

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC39160 - Stack v. Hartford Distributors, Inc. ("The defendant, Hartford Distributors, Inc. (Hartford Distributors), appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application, filed by the plaintiff, Gerard Stack, for an order to proceed with arbitration pursuant to the parties’ employment agreement. On appeal, Hartford Distributors claims that the court erred in ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration because the parties’ dispute did not arise out of the parties’ employment agreement. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC39155 - Henry v. Imbruce ("The defendants appeal from the judgments of the trial court confirming an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in denying their motion to vacate the award and in granting the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the award because the arbitrator failed to disclose a conflict of interest, failed to order production of certain evidence and exceeded her powers under the arbitration agreements. We disagree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC39253 - Doyle v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Robert Doyle, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in his favor in the amount of $5924 in this action to recover underinsured motorist benefits under an automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant, Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal). The plaintiff suffered injuries in a collision between his automobile and that of an underinsured motorist, Neil Nilson. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that he was collaterally estopped from relitigating the amount of damages awarded to him in binding arbitration with Nilson. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

Friday December 22nd

• Danbury Law Library will close at 12:30 p.m.

Monday December 25th

• All Judicial Branch Law Libraries will be closed.
  

Tuesday December 26th

• Danbury Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
• Hartford Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library will be closed.
• New London Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library will be closed.

Wednesday December 27th

• Danbury Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
• Hartford Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library will be closed.
• New Britain Law Library will be closed.
• New London Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Thursday December 28th

• Danbury Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
• Hartford Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
• New London Law Library will be closed.
• Putnam Law Library will be closed.
  

Friday December 29th

• Danbury Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
• New London Law Library will be closed.
• Rockville Law Library will be closed.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC38227 - State v. Jackson (Assault in first degree; tampering with witness; "The defendant, Kevin Jackson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a trial to the court, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1) and tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the state presented insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for those offenses, (2) the court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss two counts alleging tampering with a witness, and (3) the trial court improperly restricted his recross-examination of a witness. We are unpersuaded by each of the defendant's claims and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40099 - State v. Mukhtaar (Murder; "The self-represented defendant, Abdul Mukhtaar, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence.The defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence and (2) denying his motion to allow an expert witness to testify. We disagree.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC39556 - Vitale v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his petition. We conclude that the habeas court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition and, therefore, that it did not abuse its discretion by denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC38688 - Colon v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly denied his petition for certification to appeal after erroneously concluding that his criminal trial counsel, Nicholas Car- dwell, had not provided ineffective assistance. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC19656 - Hull v. Newtown (Personal injury; "This appeal requires us to determine whether certain policy and procedures of the Newtown Police Department (department) imposed a ministerial duty on its officers to search Stanley Lupienski, an individual suffering from auditory hallucinations and shortness of breath, when they took him into custody pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-503 (a). The plaintiffs, Andrew Hull and Erica Hull, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the town of Newtown. The plaintiffs contend that the arrest section of the department's policy (arrest policy) imposes a ministerial, nondiscretionary duty on the police to search anyone taken into custody, including those taken into custody pursuant to § 17a-503 (a). See Newtown Board of Police Commissioners, Newtown Police Policy and Procedure 3.00 (revised February 1, 2005) (Police Policy). Alternatively, the plaintiffs argue that Lupienski was a prisoner and, therefore, subject to mandatory search under the department's prisoner transportation section of the policy (transportation policy). See id., 3.07 (revised May 5, 2009). The defendant counters that the arrest policy applies only in the context of criminal arrest and does not apply in the context of civil mental health custody, which is governed by § 17a-503 (a). The defendant also argues that the transportation policy does not apply to those under custody pursuant to § 17a-503 (a). We agree with the defendant and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• SC19656 Dissent - Hull v. Newtown

• Posted in:
• Tort Law

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 25, for December 19, 2017 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 327: Connecticut Reports (Pages 225 - 337)
• Volume 327: Orders (Pages 976 - 980)
• Volume 327: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 178: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 671 - 820)
• Volume 178: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 904)
• Volume 178: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

SC19570 - Williams v. Housing Authority (Negligence; "This certified appeal arises out of a tragic fire in which four residents of a Bridgeport public housing complex—Tiana N.A. Black and her three young children—lost their lives. The plaintiff, Twila Williams, as administratrix of the estate of each decedent, brought the present action against the Bridgeport Fire Department and five Bridgeport city officials—Fire Chief Brian Rooney, Fire Marshal William Cosgrove, Mayor William Finch, Zoning Administrator Dennis Buckley, and Building Official Peter Paajanen—(collectively, the municipal defendants) as well as various other defendants who are not parties to the present appeal. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the decedents died as a result of the municipal defendants' negligent failure to inspect the smoke detection equipment in their apartment unit for compliance with applicable fire safety codes and regulations. The trial court, Sommer, J., rendered summary judgment for the municipal defendants, concluding, with respect to their alleged failure to inspect, that Connecticut's municipal liability statute, General Statutes § 52-557n, afforded them immunity from liability. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that a jury reasonably could find that the conduct of the municipal defendants demonstrated 'a reckless disregard for health or safety under all the relevant circumstances' and, therefore, that they were potentially liable pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (8). Williams v. Housing Authority, 159 Conn. App. 679, 696, 124 A.3d 537 (2015). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC19570 Dissent - Williams v. Housing Authority

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC38669 - Isenburg v. Isenburg ("The plaintiff, Elizabeth Isenburg, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, awarding her limited damages and other relief against the defendant, Matthew Isenburg, on multiple claims against him. The following facts, as found by the trial court, are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant were in a relationship for fourteen years, from 1998 to 2012. During that period, the plaintiff lived in the defendant’s home. Long before the parties’ relationship began, the defendant owned an extensive collection of early photographs and photographic ephemera (photographic collection), which he ultimately sold in 2012 for fifteen million dollars. Several months after the sale of the photographic collection, the parties’ relationship ended, and the plaintiff moved out of the defendant’s home." ...

"On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred by: (1) excluding large portions of certain exhibits she had offered into evidence at trial; (2) not recusing itself, sua sponte, from the case; (3) finding that there was no express or implied contract between her and the defendant; (4) finding that the defendant did not owe her any fiduciary duty, much less breach such a duty to her; and (5) failing to award her certain other specific damages and property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC39232 - Heyward v. Judicial Dept. ("In this action arising out of alleged workplace discrimination, the plaintiff Theresa D. S. Heyward appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant Judicial Department of the state of Connecticut. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to strike her hostile work environment and racial discrimination claims. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38940 - Baronio v. Stubbs ("The defendant, Donna Stubbs, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding her and the plaintiff, Pascal Baronio, joint legal custody of their minor child. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court: (1) ‘erred in presuming that shared physical custody was in the child’s best interest where there was not an agreement by the defendant to an award of joint legal custody within the meaning of General Statutes § 46b-56a (b)’; and (2) ‘committed plain error by stating during pendente lite proceedings that it wanted to see an increase in the plaintiff’s parenting time, and by indicating before it heard all the evidence at trial that it was inclined to award joint legal custody to the plaintiff.’ We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38124 - State v. Azevedo (Arson in first degree; attempt to commit insurance fraud; attempt to commit larceny in first degree; conspiracy to commit arson in first degree; conspiracy to commit insurance fraud; conspiracy to commit larceny in first degree; "On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) out-of-court statements of a coconspirator that the trial court admitted into evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, and (2) that the state's use of cell site location information violated article first, § 7, of the constitution of Connecticut. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38832 - State v. Smith (Probation; "The defendant, Jacqui Smith, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years incarceration.The defendant claims that (1) the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the probation violation charge on the basis that the hearing did not occur within 120 days of his arraignment in violation of General Statutes § 53a-32 (c) and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had operated a motor vehicle while his driver's license was under suspension in violation of General Statutes § 14-215 (a) and, therefore, he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The state counters that, pursuant to State v. Kelley, 164 Conn. App. 232, 137 A.3d 822 (2016), aff'd, 326 Conn. 731, 167 A.3d 961 (2017), the 120 day time frame of § 53a-32 (c) is directory and, additionally, that the court properly found good cause for the delay. The state concedes, however, that there was insufficient evidence for the court to conclude that the defendant had violated § 14-215 (a), and, therefore, under these facts and circumstances, the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. We conclude that the court properly determined that the 120 day time period of § 53a-32 (c) is a nonmandatory "guideline." Further, we agree that a new sentencing hearing is required. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions