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.

Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3377

SC19788 - State v. Daniel B. (Attempt to commit murder; certification from Appellate Court; sufficiency of evidence; "The present appeal requires us to consider whether, in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for attempt to commit murder under the substantial step provision of General Statutes § 53a-49 (a) (2), the proper inquiry should focus on what the actor had already done or on what the actor had left to do to complete the crime of murder. In the present case, the jury found the defendant, Daniel B., guilty of attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a and 53a-49 (a) (2). Following our grant of certification, the defendant appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of conviction. See State v. Daniel B., 164 Conn. App. 318, 354, 137 A.3d 837 (2016). The defendant claims that, in concluding that the evidence was sufficient, the Appellate Court improperly construed § 53a-49 (a) (2) to require the substantial step inquiry to focus on "what [the actor] has already done," rather than what "remains to be done . . . ." Id., 332. The state responds that the Appellate Court properly held that the focus is on what the actor has already done and that, when considering the defendant's conduct in the present case, the Appellate Court properly concluded that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction of attempted murder. See id., 333. We conclude that the determination of what conduct constitutes a substantial step under § 53a-49 (a) (2) focuses on what the actor has already done rather than on what the actor has left to do to complete the substantive crime. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - February 26, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3376

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 35, for February 26, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 330: Connecticut Reports (Pages 744 - 799)
  • Volume 330: Orders (Pages 971 - 972)
  • Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 188: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 121)
  • Volume 188: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
  • Volume 188: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Workers' Compensation Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3375

AC38256 - Quinones v. R.W. Thompson Co. ("The plaintiff, Wilfredo Quinones, appeals from the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board) affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner for the Sixth District, Stephen B. Delaney, denying the plaintiff's motion to preclude the defendant, R. W. Thompson Co., Inc., from contesting the extent of the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board improperly (1) found there was no error when the commissioner rejected an alleged stipulation that the case be decided on the original record and (2) affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion to preclude despite the defendant's failure to file a form 43. We affirm the decision of the board.")


Habeas Corpus Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3374

AC40541 - McClain v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Tajah S. McClain, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly rejected (1) his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and (2) his claim of actual innocence. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner's appeal.")


Attorney Discipline Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3373

AC41741 - Maurice v. Chester Housing Associates Ltd. Partnership ("The plaintiff in error, Douglas Williams, brings this writ of error after the trial court sanctioned him for bad faith litigation misconduct and determined that, following further proceedings, attorney's fees shall be awarded to the defendant in error, De Ann Maurice. In his writ, he claims that (1) the trial court acted outside of the scope of its authority and (2) even if the court had such authority, it abused its discretion by determining that an award of attorney's fees was an appropriate sanction against him for out-of-court conduct when he was not a party to the underlying matter. We dismiss the writ of error.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3372

AC40292, AC40436 - Wolyniec v. Wolyniec ("In these consolidated appeals, the plaintiff, Krzysztof Wolyniec, appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered on several postjudgment motions filed by him and the defendant, Marlena Wolyniec. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by (1) ordering that the defendant may continue to reside at the plaintiff's Darien residence until he satisfies his acknowledged arrearage in unallocated alimony and child support, and (2) failing to find that the defendant's motion for contempt as to the arrearage in unallocated alimony and child support was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. We are not persuaded by either claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3370

AC40484 - Canton v. Cadle Properties of Connecticut, Inc. (Petition for appointment of receiver of rents; "On April 26, 2011, the plaintiff, the town of Canton (town), filed a petition for an appointment of a receiver of rents after the named defendant, Cadle Properties of Connecticut, Inc. (Cadle), failed to pay property taxes on real property it owns at 51 Albany Turnpike in Canton. The court granted the petition on June 20, 2011. In this appeal, the intervening defendant, M & S Associates, LLC, which currently occupies the subject property, appeals from the trial court's postjudgment order approving an interim accounting filed by the receiver of rents, Boardwalk Realty Associates, LLC (receiver). The defendant claims that the trial court erred in granting the receiver's motion for approval of the interim accounting by misconstruing General Statutes § 12-163a and finding that the receiver is not required to pay, from the date of the receiver's appointment, the defendant's utility costs at the subject property. We disagree.")


Declaratory Judgment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3371

AC40546 - Kaminsky v. Commissioner of Emergency Services & Public Protection ("The plaintiff, Joseph W. Kaminsky, Jr., appeals from the trial court's judgment, rendered after a trial without a jury, denying his request for a declaratory judgment holding that certain firearms were improperly seized and withheld from him by the defendant, the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, and thus that he is entitled to the return of those firearms. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in denying his request on the basis of its misinterpretation of the applicable statutory provisions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3367

AC40710 - Patty v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their appeal from the decision of the defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Wilton (commission), granting the application of the defendant Wilton Youth Football, Inc., for an amendment to an existing special permit and for site plan approval to allow the installation of an artificial turf field at the Middlebrook School in Wilton. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that the commission's approval did not include prohibited trailers on the property. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the only evidence in the record before the commission was that the defendant's application included trailers that were prohibited by § 29-4.C.9 of the Wilton Zoning Regulations (regulations). Our review of the record reveals that the plaintiffs failed to raise this claim before the commission, and, accordingly, we decline to review it.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3365

SC19947 - State v. Henderson (Motion to correct illegal sentence; sentence enhancement pursuant to statute ([Rev. to 1991] § 53a-40 [a] and [b]); persistent dangerous felony offender; persistent serious felony offender; trial court's denial of defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence; "We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following question: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant’s sentence was not illegal, does not violate the double jeopardy clause [of the United States constitution], and does not run contrary to legislative intent?" State v. Henderson, 326 Conn. 914, 173 A.3d 389 (2017).

After examining the record and briefs on appeal and considering the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The Appellate Court’s thorough and well reasoned opinion fully addresses the certified question, and, accordingly, there is no need for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. We therefore adopt the Appellate Court's opinion as the proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. See, e.g., Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 308 Conn. 456, 462, 64 A.3d 325 (2013).

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3366

AC40883 - Stamford v. Rahman ("The defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America), appeals from the judgment of the trial court opening the supplemental judgment that had been rendered in its favor and, thereafter, rendering a supplemental judgment in favor of the defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (Wells Fargo), in the amount of $348,097.16. On appeal, Bank of America claims that the court erred in granting Wells Fargo's motion to open the supplemental judgment more than four months after it was rendered on the basis of fraud committed by a homeowner in securing multiple mortgages years before this action to foreclose a blight lien commenced. We agree that the court erred and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Employment Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3369

SC20069 - O'Brien v. New Haven ("PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, William O'Brien, the former tax assessor of the defendant, the city of New Haven (city), commenced this action, seeking indemnification pursuant to General Statutes § 7-101a (b) for the attorney's fees and costs he incurred in successfully defending himself in a prior action brought by a third party, Tax Data Solutions, LLC. Following a court trial, the court rendered judgment for O'Brien and awarded him the attorney's fees and costs he incurred in that prior action. On appeal to the Appellate Court, the city claimed that the trial court incorrectly concluded that O'Brien's claim was not time barred under § 7-101a (d), which provides that no action against a municipality for indemnification under § 7-101a may be maintained unless that action is 'commenced within two years after the cause of action therefor arose nor unless written notice of the intention to commence such action and of the time when and the place where the damages were incurred or sustained has been filed with the clerk of such municipality within six months after such cause of action has accrued.' The Appellate Court rejected the city's claim, holding that the 'cause of action' referred to in § 7-101a (d) is the cause of action for indemnification and not, as the city had maintained, the earlier, underlying action in which the attorney's fees and costs were incurred. See O'Brien v. New Haven, 178 Conn. App. 469, 487–88, 175 A.3d 589 (2017). The Appellate Court therefore concluded that the present indemnification action did not arise until judgment had been rendered for O'Brien in the action brought against him by Tax Data Solutions, LLC. See id. Because O'Brien commenced the present action within two years of that date and provided the statutorily required notice within six months of that date, the Appellate Court further concluded that the trial court properly had determined that the present action was timely. See id., 488. We granted the city's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the judgment of the trial court interpreting when [O'Brien's] cause of action for indemnification accrued for the purposes of the notice requirement and time limitations set forth in . . . § 7-101a (d)?' O'Brien v. New Haven, 328 Conn. 909, 178 A.3d 1041 (2018).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.")



New Office of Legislative Research Reports

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3364

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

Seat Belt Laws - 2019-R-0043
Provide a summary of Connecticut’s seat belt laws as well as those in other states and whether such laws are effective at increasing seat belt use.

Criminal and Juvenile Delinquency Record Erasure - 2019-R-0058
What is the distinction between criminal record erasure or expungement, record sealing, and an absolute pardon under Connecticut law? How do these processes apply in the juvenile delinquent and adult criminal context?

Cyber Threats and Cybersecurity - 2019-R-0047
Provide (1) an overview of cyber threats; (2) a summary of Connecticut’s cybersecurity strategies, action plans, and resources for public utilities, state government, businesses, and individuals; and (3) an overview of certain state cybersecurity laws.

Boards of Education and Cooperative Arrangements - 2019-R-0075
Describe the law that allows boards of education to enter into cooperative arrangements to perform various education functions, including school construction projects.

Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Programs - 2019-R-0053
This report describes student loan forgiveness and repayment programs in current state law, along with their current funding status. The report also describes examples of programs offered by other states, including Maine’s “Opportunity Maine” tax credit program, and by the federal government.


Connecticut Law Journal - February 19, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3363

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 34, for February 19, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 330: Connecticut Reports (Pages 681 - 743)
  • Volume 330: Orders (Pages 969 - 971)
  • Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 187: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 813 - 886)
  • Volume 187: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 904)
  • Volume 187: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies



Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3358

AC40747 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction (Whether court properly accepted petitioner's withdrawal of writ of habeas corpus; ("The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion because it conditioned the petitioner’s withdrawal of his petition to be with prejudice. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3359

AC41378 - Connecticut Community Bank, N.A. v. Kiernan ("The plaintiff, Connecticut Community Bank, N.A., doing business as the Greenwich Bank & Trust Company, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding what it claims to be an allegedly insufficient amount of attorney's fees after finding the defendant James T. Kiernan, Jr., liable pursuant to a mortgage note that he executed in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court erred by excluding from its award any attorney's fees that it had incurred in protecting the priority of its mortgage as to a subsequent encumbrancer, M&T Bank, formerly known as Hudson City Savings Bank (M&T Bank), which it had brought into this action as a defendant on its claim of interpleader. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3360

AC40612 - Colinet v. Brown (Alleged deprivation of plaintiff's federal constitutional rights; "In this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff, Jean Colinet, who is an inmate serving a sentence for murder, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, David Brown, a retired former director of correctional enterprises for the Department of Correction (department). The plaintiff claims that the court erred in rejecting his claims that his fourteenth amendment rights to due process and equal protection, and his first and fourteenth amendment right against retaliation were violated. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Election Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3361

SC20165 - Independent Party of CT—State Central v. Merrill ("This appeal is the latest battle in the war for control over the state's Independent Party between its Danbury faction, which is led by the plaintiffs, the Independent Party of CT—State Central and its officers, Michael Duff, Donna L. LaFrance, and Roger Palanzo, and its Waterbury faction, which is led by two of the defendants, Michael Telesca and Rocco Frank, Jr. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, for Telesca and Frank on the complaint and the counterclaim in the present action, which both sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the trial court ordered the named defendant, Secretary of the State Denise W. Merrill, to accept candidate endorsements made pursuant to the Independent Party's 2010 bylaws (2010 bylaws), which, in effect, gave the Waterbury faction control over the Independent Party's statewide nominations. There are two principal issues among the plaintiffs' plethora of claims in the present appeal. First, we consider whether the trial court's order of supplemental briefing and oral argument concerning its subject matter jurisdiction, issued just prior to the 120 day decision deadline pursuant to General Statutes § 51-183b, and after the plaintiffs' objection to the trial court's request for an extension, preserved its personal jurisdiction over the parties by stopping and later restarting the decision period. The second principal issue is whether the trial court properly determined that General Statutes § 9-374, which requires the filing of party rules before the name of a candidate endorsed by a minor political party may be printed on an election ballot, rendered the 2010 bylaws controlling, as opposed to bylaws that the Danbury faction had filed with the Secretary in 2006 (2006 bylaws) prior to the Independent Party's receiving the 1 percent of statewide votes necessary to confer minor party status. Because we conclude that the order of supplemental briefing and argument opened the 120 day decision period and later restarted it, thus rendering the trial court's decision timely under § 51-183b, and also conclude that the trial court properly construed § 9-374, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC20160 - Independent Party of CT—State Central v. Merrill ("This writ of error is the companion case to Independent Party of CT—State Central v. Merrill, 330 Conn. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2019), in which this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court resolving a long running dispute between the Danbury and Waterbury factions of the state's Independent Party by, inter alia, granting declaratory and injunctive relief directing the named defendant in the underlying action, Secretary of the State Denise W. Merrill (Secretary), to accept only those endorsements made pursuant to the party's 2010 bylaws. The plaintiffs in error, thirteen candidates for the state House of Representatives endorsed by the Danbury faction prior to the issuance of the trial court's decision in the underlying action, brought this writ of error to protect their rights with respect to the judgment of the trial court. The endorsed candidates now argue that their writ of error is moot given the unchallenged decision of the Secretary to accept the Danbury faction's endorsements with respect to twelve of them, thus allowing them to be on the Independent Party's ballot line for the 2018 election. Rebekah Harriman-Stites, a candidate endorsed by the Waterbury faction for the 106th assembly district, however, has appeared in the present proceeding as a defendant in error and contends that the writ of error is not moot in light of her request that we order the Secretary to print her name on the ballot in accordance with the trial court's decision. Because the writ of error is moot, and Harriman-Stites' separate request for relief is not properly before us, we dismiss this writ of error.")


1 2