The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 53, for June 30, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 922 - 923)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 198: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 392 - 643)
• Volume 198: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

Below is a recent update to the COVID-19 information page:

• June 29, 2020 - Update on Requesting Approval of QDROs

For the most current information, see the COVID-19 information page. Additionally, there is a Frequently Asked Questions – COVID-19 and Court Business web page organized by topic.

• Posted in:
• FYI

SC20089 - Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction ("The dispositive question presented by this certified appeal is whether a criminal defendant's federal due process rights are violated when the state knowingly fails to correct the material, false testimony of a prosecution witness when defense counsel had actual or constructive notice that the testimony is false. We conclude that, under the circumstances of the present case, the fact that defense counsel was aware of the falsity of the testimony of two cooperating witnesses was not sufficient to protect the rights of the petitioner, Jamie Gomez, to due process of the law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the habeas court denying the petitioner's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.")

• SC20089 Concurrence - Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction

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

AC42131 - State Marshal Assn. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Johnson (Declaratory action; motion to dismiss; "The plaintiff, State Marshal Association of Connecticut, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its declaratory action against the defendants, Erin Johnson, the tax collector of the town of Canton (town), and Pullman & Comley, LLC (Pullman). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that it lacked standing to maintain the action and (2) denied the plaintiff's motion seeking reargument and reconsideration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC41350, AC41351 - Pack 2000, Inc. v. Cushman (Leases; options to purchase real property; specific performance; "In these consolidated appeals, the plaintiff, Pack 2000, Inc., appeals from the judgments of the trial court, which determined the amount due the defendant, Eugene C. Cushman, for two properties he had contracted to sell to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in concluding that (1) the purchase prices for the properties, located in Groton and New London, should be based on their current appraised values, rather than their appraised values in 2003, (2) the plaintiff was required to pay use and occupancy for its continued use of the Groton property retroactive to June 1, 2014, until the closing of the sale of the property to the plaintiff, and (3) the plaintiff was not entitled to credits toward the purchase price of each property for moneys paid as rent or use and occupancy after it exercised its options to purchase the properties. The defendant filed cross appeals, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to use the current appraised value set by his appraiser as the purchase price for the Groton property. We agree with the plaintiff on all of its claims and disagree with the defendant as to his cross appeals. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the cases with direction to determine the purchase prices of the properties pursuant to the plaintiff’s exercise of its options to purchase the properties in 2003, that the court credit against those purchase prices any payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant for use of the properties after its exercise of its purchase options, and, to the extent that the payments to the defendant on each property, after the option became effective, exceeded the purchase price of that property, that the court order any overpayment be refunded to the plaintiff.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42551 - Stubbs v. ICare Management, LLC (Employment discrimination; "The plaintiff, Tanya Stubbs, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, ICare Management, LLC (ICare), and Meriden Care Center, LLC (Meriden), on the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged violations of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants terminated her due to her disability, failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disability, and retaliated against her for requesting a reasonable accommodation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in determining that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether (1) the defendants' stated reason for their termination of the plaintiff's employment was pretextual and as to whether, at the time her employment was terminated, she was qualified, with or without a reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of her job, and (2) the defendants failed to provide the plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation. Because there are genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiff's claims of discrimination and failure to accommodate, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to those claims. We affirm the trial court's judgment as to the plaintiff's claims of retaliation because she has failed to brief the claims and, therefore, has abandoned them.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42748 - Sackman v. Quinlan (Conversion; unjust enrichment; tortious interference with contract; whether trial court abused its discretion when it granted motion for permission to file motion for summary judgment; "This appeal arises from a dispute between the self-represented plaintiffs, the biological children of William Sackman, Jr. (William), from his marriage to Elaine Sackman (Elaine), and the defendants, who are the children of William's second wife, Nancy L. Sackman (Nancy), and one of the children's spouse. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendants on a motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly (1) allowed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment, (2) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (3) failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42654 - Audibert v. Halle (Negligence; motion to set aside verdict and for new trial; "The plaintiff, Carole Audibert, brought this personal injury action against the defendant, Wesley Halle, for injuries she alleges she sustained as the result of an automobile accident on April 12, 2013, caused by the defendant's negligence. The case was tried to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in accordance with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly admitted irrelevant evidence, (2) the court improperly failed to provide a curative instruction to the jury, (3) the defendant's counsel violated rule 3.4 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct during closing argument, depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial, and (4) the court abused its discretion by failing to set aside the verdict and to grant the plaintiff a new trial. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC41916 - State v. Jackson (Violation of probation; "The defendant, Sean Jackson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and imposing a sentence of six years of incarceration. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he violated his probation, (2) the court erred in admitting hearsay testimony at the probation revocation hearing, and (3) the court abused its discretion when it imposed a sentence of six years of incarceration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42888 - State v. Harris (Murder; robbery in first degree; carrying pistol without permit; "The defendant, Jermaine Harris, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder, robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted uncharged misconduct evidence, (2) his right to due process was violated when the prosecutor appealed to the emotions of the jurors and misstated evidence, and (3) his right to due process was violated when the state withheld material evidence. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42126 - State v. Auburn W. (Harassment in second degree; stalking in second degree; whether trial court improperly determined that defendant forfeited right to self-representation on basis of lack of competence; "The defendant, Auburn W., appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of three counts of harassment in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-183 (a) (2), one count of harassment in the second degree in violation of § 53a-183 (a) (3), and one count of stalking in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-181d (b) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly held that he forfeited his right to self-representation on the basis of a lack of competence. We disagree and, thus, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC36358 - State v. Leniart (Murder; capital felony; "This case returns to this court on remand from our Supreme Court following its reversal of our judgment reversing the judgment of conviction of the defendant, George Michael Leniart, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), and three counts of capital felony in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53a-54b (5), (7) and (9), as amended by Public Acts 1995, No. 95-16, § 4. The sole remaining claim before us is whether the trial court's improper exclusion of certain evidence at trial violated the defendant's rights under the United States constitution. We conclude that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.")

• AC36358 Concurrence - State v. Leniart

AC41745 - State v. Brown (Assault in first degree; "The defendant, Donald Brown, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5). On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt his asserted justification of self-defense and, accordingly, that he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

The Office of Legislative Research has published the following reports:

COVID-19 Assistance for Homeowners and Landlords - 2020-R-0147 - Describe assistance available to homeowners and landlords impacted by COVID-19. Additionally, identify relevant COVID-19-related resources.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

The 2020 edition of our research guide on Repossessions in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides web page.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

SC20232 - Borelli v. Renaldi (Negligence; Municipal Police; Governmental and Qualified Immunity; "This appeal requires us to consider the narrow question of whether a town and its municipal police officers are shielded by governmental and qualified immunity from liability for the decision to initiate a high-speed police pursuit that lasted less than two minutes and ended in a fatal automobile accident. The plaintiff, Angela Borelli, administratrix of the estate of Brandon Giordano (decedent), appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the town of Seymour (town) and three officers of the Seymour Police Department (department), Officer Anthony Renaldi, Officer Michael Jasmin and Sergeant William King. The plaintiff claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that (1) General Statutes § 14-283 (d) imposes a discretionary rather than a ministerial duty on police officers "to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and property" in determining whether to pursue a motorist who flees when an officer attempts to pull him or her over, and (2) the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any issue of material fact remained regarding whether the decedent was an identifiable victim subject to imminent harm on the basis of the court's finding that there was no evidence in the record supporting that conclusion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• SC20232 First Concurrence - Borelli v. Renaldi

• SC20232 Second Concurrence - Borelli v. Renaldi

• SC20232 Dissent - Borelli v. Renaldi

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC20245 - In re Teagan K.-O. ("This case requires us to consider whether a Connecticut trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to adjudicate a newborn child neglected on the basis of "predictive neglect" when the parents relocated to another state shortly before the child's birth, purportedly with no intention of returning, and that state determined that Connecticut would be a more convenient forum to adjudicate this matter. The respondent father appeals from the trial court's decision denying his motion to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, to adjudicate the respondents' child, Teagan K.-O., neglected. The father contends that, irrespective of the fact that a petition to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to another child of theirs was pending in Connecticut when they relocated to Florida, a Connecticut trial court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Teagan's neglect petition because any neglect of her would never occur in this state. The commissioner contends that the determination by a Florida court that this state would be a more appropriate forum provided a proper basis for the Connecticut trial court's subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which has been adopted by both states. See General Statutes §§ 46b-115 through 46b-115gg; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.501 et seq. (West 2012). We agree with the father's jurisdictional argument. The trial court, therefore, improperly denied his motion to dismiss the neglect petition.")

• SC20245 Dissent - In re Teagan K.-O.

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 52, for June 23, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 922 - 922)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 198: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 253 - 392)
• Volume 198: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Practice Book Revisions to the Rules Of Appellate Procedure being considered by the Supreme and Appellate Courts

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

The Office of Legislative Research has published the following reports:

Assisted Living Facility Regulation - 2020-R-0165 - Describe how Connecticut regulates assisted living facilities.This report updates OLR Report 2012-R-0244.

Assisted Living Facility Staffing Requirements - 2020-R-0067 - Do state regulations establish minimum staffing requirements for assisted living facilities?

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

Below are recent updates to the Judicial Branch home page and COVID-19 information page:

• June 17, 2020: The Judicial Branch is Expanding its Remote Capabilities


• June 17, 2020: Virtual (Video) Hearings and Future Scheduling of Family Court Matters


• June 17, 2020: Superior Court for Family Matters Notice to Parties and Counsel

For the most current information, see the COVID-19 information page. Additionally, there is a Frequently Asked Questions – COVID-19 and Court Business web page organized by topic.

• Posted in:
• FYI

AC42006 - State v. Dyous (Petition to extend psychiatric commitment of acquittee to jurisdiction of Psychiatric Security Review Board; "The defendant, Anthony Dyous (acquittee), appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the state's petition to extend his commitment to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board) for a period of four years. On appeal, the acquittee claims that the court improperly found that, at the time of the state's petition, he was mentally ill and dangerous to himself or others. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36742, AC37544 - State v. Robert H. (Risk of injury to child; corpus delicti or corroboration rule; "This risk of injury case returns to this court on remand from our Supreme Court; see State v. Robert H., 333 Conn. 172, 175, 214 A.3d 343 (2019) (Robert II); directing this court to consider fully the merits of the "corpus delicti claim" raised by the defendant, Robert H., in his direct appeal. See State v. Robert H., 168 Conn. App. 419, 422–23, 146 A.3d 995 (2016) (Robert I), rev'd, 333 Conn. 172, 214 A.3d 343 (2019). Our Supreme Court further directed this court to review the defendant's corpus delicti claim pursuant to its decision in State v. Leniart, 333 Conn. 88, 97, 215 A.3d 1104 (2019). We have considered the defendant's corpus delicti claim as directed and conclude that the judgments of conviction should be affirmed.")

AC42264 - State v. Magaraci (Assault in first degree; claim that state presented insufficient evidence to disprove defendant's theory of self-defense; credibility of witnesses; "The defendant, Anthony Magaraci, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). The defendant claims that (1) the state adduced insufficient evidence to support his conviction because it had failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense, and (2) the court improperly instructed the jury on self-defense. We conclude that the evidence sufficed to permit the jury, as the arbiters of the credibility of witnesses, reasonably to conclude that the defendant was the original aggressor and that he had stabbed the victims even though he could have safely retreated. We also conclude that the defendant waived any claim of instructional error. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC41795 - Moyher v. Moyher (Marital dissolution; claim that trial court improperly found that certain real property located in New Hampshire was marital asset; "The defendant, Paul J. Moyher III, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Sarah A. Moyher, and entering related financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) finding that certain real property located in New Hampshire was a marital asset and awarding the plaintiff 40 percent of its value, (2) not allowing the defendant to present evidence at trial regarding a prenuptial agreement between the parties, and (3) ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff her awarded share of the New Hampshire real property, $150,750 plus interest, within five months of the dissolution judgment. We disagree with the defendant's first two claims; however, we agree that the court abused its discretion in ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff her share of the New Hampshire property within five months of the dissolution judgment. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40066 - Sclafani Properties, LLC v. Sport-N-Life Distributing, LLC (Breach of lease; attorney trial referee; attorney's fees; "The plaintiff, Sclafani Properties, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding it damages and attorney's fees for the failure of the defendants, Sport-N-Life Distributing, LLC (lessee), and its president, Gilbert Beck (guarantor), to pay amounts due to the plaintiff under a commercial lease for property located at 482 Glenbrook Road in Stamford (property) The plaintiff claims that the court (1) erred when it failed to include in its judgment for the plaintiff an amount for unpaid real estate taxes and (2) abused its discretion in awarding only $6391.63 in attorney's fees. We reverse in part the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41434 - Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; whether habeas court properly denied petition for writ of habeas corpus; claim that conditions of petitioner's confinement were illegal because he was receiving constitutionally inadequate mental health treatment; "The petitioner, Francis Anderson, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which alleged that the conditions of his confinement were illegal because he was receiving constitutionally inadequate mental health treatment while he was in the custody of the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the habeas court violated his right to procedural due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution by failing to provide him adequate notice of the habeas trial and denying him a meaningful opportunity to be heard. We reverse the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC42372 - Davis v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; whether petitioner's trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance for having failed to challenge statute (§ 53a-149) criminalizing bribery of witness as facially overbroad under novel constitutional argument that § 53a-149 could encompass legal activity such as settlement negotiations; "The petitioner, Edward V. Davis, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In this certified appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claims of ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel for their failure (1) to challenge General Statutes § 53a-149 as unconstitutionally overbroad on its face with respect to the charge of bribery of a witness, (2) to request a jury instruction on "true threats" with respect to the charge of breach of the peace in the second degree under General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (3), and (3) to challenge the admissibility of the petitioner's blood test results from the hospital where he was taken after the traffic incident at issue. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 51, for June 16, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 921 - 922)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 198: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 41 - 252)
• Volume 198: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Practice Book Revisions to the Rules Of Appellate Procedure being considered by the Supreme and Appellate Courts

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