Please note: Bridgeport Law Library is closed until further notice.

See our regularly scheduled hours.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The 2022 edition of the research guide on Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

AC43819 - Salamone v. Wesleyan University ("The plaintiffs, Craig Salamone and Doug Cartelli, commenced this action, claiming that they were sexually assaulted by a resident advisor or head resident on the campus of the defendant Wesleyan University. In this appeal, the plaintiffs challenge the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the harm alleged was reasonably foreseeable.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC43695 - Freidburg v. Kurtz ("In this landlord-tenant dispute, the defendants, Jo-Ellen Kurtz, Andrew Kurtz, and Janice Levy, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Terrance Mills Freidburg. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred (1) in rendering judgment against them for damages to the property that they leased from the plaintiff without determining its age and condition at the commencement of the tenancy and the relative wear and tear of the items at the termination of the tenancy and (2) in failing to render judgment for the defendants on their counterclaim concerning their security deposit that they paid to the plaintiff when they entered into an agreement to lease the property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC44114 - DiTullio v. LM General Ins. Co. ("This appeal concerns an arbitration award (award) that arose out of an underinsured motorist cause of action. The plaintiff, Gabrielle DiTullio, appeals from the judgment of the trial court 'confirming the arbitration award with a deduction for the $20,000 offset to clarify the amount to be awarded is $12,500 in accordance with the law.' (Emphasis added.) On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly deducted $20,000 from the award because the court (1) lacked statutory authority to do so, as the defendant, LM General Insurance Company, failed to file a motion to modify, correct, or vacate the award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-407tt, § 52-407xx, or § 52-407ww, and also (2) lacked common-law authority to do so. We conclude that the deduction was proper, but on different grounds than those relied upon by the court. The court had authority to deduct the $20,000 settlement from the tortfeasor from the full value arbitration award to conform the award to the parties' written agreement. The court, however, miscalculated the amount of the judgment, and thus, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42735 - Ill v. Manzo-III ("In this postdissolution matter, the plaintiff, Charles Ill, appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding him in contempt and subsequently awarding interest and attorney's fees to the defendant, Ellen Manzo-Ill. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) found him to be in contempt, (2) ordered him to pay the defendant the value of certain shares of a private corporation, (3) awarded the defendant postjudgment interest, (4) awarded the defendant attorney's fees, and (5) by virtue of its scheduling order, limited his defense at the contempt hearing and the attorney's fees hearing. We agree with the plaintiff's fifth claim and reverse the judgments of the court and remand the case for a new contempt hearing.")

AC43944 - Ostapowicz v. Wisniewski ("The plaintiff, Halina Ostapowicz, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Jerzy Wisniewski.On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the parties' premarital agreement, (2) erroneously found that certain property constituted the defendant's separate property under the premarital agreement and failed to assign a specific value to that property, and (3) abused its discretion in assigning to her the debt on the parties' home equity line of credit. We agree with the plaintiff's third claim and, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43834 - Nutmeg State Crematorium, LLC v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection (Administrative appeal; "The plaintiffs, Luke DiMaria and Nutmeg State Crematorium, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their administrative appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (commissioner), denying the plaintiffs' applications for two new source review air permits (air permits), which had been submitted by the plaintiffs to the defendant Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (department). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred by (1) concluding that the plaintiffs' cremation system exceeded the maximum allowable stack concentration (MASC) for mercury, (2) interpreting improperly the term "ambient air" to mean all atmosphere external to buildings, (3) adjudicating issues not raised in the administrative appeal, and (4) violating binding legal precedent and General Statutes § 4-183 (j). We affirm the judgment of the court dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Environmental Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20590 - O. A. v. J. A. ("In this interlocutory appeal, we must decide whether a spouse seeking pendente lite alimony, attorney's fees, and expert fees during the pendency of a dissolution action must demonstrate that a postnuptial agreement that purportedly precludes such payments is invalid or otherwise unenforceable before the trial court properly may order the other spouse to make any such payments."

---

"On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court incorrectly determined that it need not determine the enforceability of the parties' postnuptial agreement before awarding the plaintiff pendente lite alimony, attorney's fees, and expert fees (hereinafter alimony and litigation expenses), which the defendant contends the plaintiff is not entitled to under the agreement. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has recently published the following new reports on tax issues:

Sales and Use Tax on COVID-19 Test Kits - 2022-R-0017 - Are at-home COVID-19 test kits subject to sales and use tax?

Connecticut Adjusted Gross Income - 2022-R-0015 - Explains Connecticut adjusted gross income (CT AGI), which is the basis for calculating income subject to Connecticut’s income tax. What does it mean if an exemption or deduction is above or below the line? This report updates OLR Report 2016-R-0186.

Corporation Business Tax Surcharge - 2022-R-0019 - Provides answers to several questions about the corporation business tax surcharge.

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

The 2022 edition of our research guide on Employment Law and the Family has been added to our research guides web page. Section 3 has been updated to reflect changes in the family medical leave and paid leave laws.

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

Please note: Bridgeport Law Library is closed until further notice.

See our regularly scheduled hours.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20538 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLC (Sex Discrimination; Whether Women Only Workout Area in Gym Amounted to Sex Discrimination Prohibited by General Statutes § 46a-64; Whether Trial Court Properly Found Activity Exempt. "This appeal presents a significant question of first impression with respect to whether the Public Accommodation Act, General Statutes § 46a-64, contains an implied customer gender privacy exception to its general prohibition against sex based discrimination. The plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal from the decision of the commission's human rights referee (referee), who found that the defendants Edge Fitness, LLC (Edge Fitness) and Club Camel, Inc., Bloomfield, doing business as Club Fitness (Club Fitness), did not engage in discriminatory public accommodations practices. On appeal, the commission claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that women's only workout areas in otherwise public gyms did not violate § 46a-64 because that statute contains an implied customer gender privacy exception. We conclude that the exceptions to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodations are limited to those expressly provided by the plain language of § 46a-64 and, therefore, that there is no implied customer gender privacy exception to the statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Civil Rights,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 30, for January 25, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 340: Connecticut Reports (Pages 804 - 822)
• Volume 340: Orders (Pages 922 - 922)
• Volume 340: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 341: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 47)
• Volume 341: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 210: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 130 - 347)
• Volume 210: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
• Volume 210: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases

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

The 2022 edition of our research guide on Property of Spouses in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage. A new table of Connecticut Superior Court case decisions on the debts of spouses has been added.

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

SC20280 - Day v. Seblatnigg ("The issue that we must decide in this certified appeal, broadly stated, is whether a person who has voluntarily obtained the appointment of a conservator, and thus has not been found by a court to be incapable of managing her affairs, shares joint authority with the conservator of her estate. This issue arises in the specific context of the question of whether an inter vivos trust created by a person under a voluntary conservatorship was void ab initio because the authority to create such a trust rested exclusively with the conservator of the estate under General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 45a-655.

In 2011, Susan D. Elia submitted an application to the Probate Court for voluntary representation by the named defendant, Renee F. Seblatnigg, as the conservator of her estate. The Probate Court granted the application. Thereafter, Elia created an irrevocable trust and arranged for the transfer of certain assets to it. In 2014, the plaintiff, Margaret E. Day, acting in her capacity as coconservator of Elia's estate for the limited purpose of matters related to the irrevocable trust, brought this action, seeking a judgment declaring that the trust was void ab initio because Seblatnigg, as Elia's conservator, did not create and fund the trust with the approval of the Probate Court pursuant to § 45a-655 (e). Thereafter, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant, First State Fiduciaries, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company that was designated as 'the protector of the . . . irrevocable trust,' appealed from the judgment to the Appellate Court, claiming, among other things, that the trial court had incorrectly determined that Elia could not create an irrevocable trust on her own behalf while she was under a voluntary conservatorship. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Day v. Seblatnigg, 186 Conn. App. 482, 506, 199 A.3d 1103 (2018). This certified appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC20280 Concurrence

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20531 - State v. Belcher (Criminal; Juvenile Sentencing; "The defendant, Keith Belcher, a juvenile offender, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. After his conviction, the defendant received a total effective sentence of sixty years of incarceration. He claims, inter alia, that the trial court improperly denied his motion to correct on the basis of the court’s conclusion that the sentencing court did not impose the sentence in an illegal manner by relying on materially false information.

Our review of the record reveals that the defendant established that the sentencing court substantially relied on materially false information in imposing his sentence, specifically, on the court’s view that the defendant was a ‘‘charter member’’ of a mythical group of teenage ‘‘superpredators.’’ Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to correct. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and the case is remanded with direction to grant the defendant’s motion and for resentencing.")

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

AC43488 - Karen v. Loftus ("The plaintiff, Cindy L. Karen, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to open the judgment dissolving her marriage to the defendant, William P. Loftus. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court utilized the incorrect legal standard in adjudicating her motion to open. We agree, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")

AC43630 - R. S. v. E. S. ("The self-represented defendant, E. S., appeals following the trial court's judgment dissolving the marriage of the defendant and the plaintiff, R. S. We dismiss as moot the defendant's appeal with respect to the court's pendente lite order imposing certain travel restrictions. We conclude that the remainder of the defendant's claims are meritless and do not warrant substantive discussion. We affirm the judgment.")

AC44272 -Taber v. Taber ("In this amended appeal, the self-represented defendant, Michael Taber, appeals from the order of the trial court granting the application for an emergency ex parte order of custody filed by the plaintiff, Stacy Taber.The order, in part, limited the defendant's right to visitation with the parties' minor child.The defendant also appeals from another order of the court ordering him to pay $100 per week on a total arrearage of guardian ad litem (GAL) fees incurred in this dissolution matter and related proceedings.The defendant claims that the court (1) failed to apply the correct legal standard and failed to make requisite findings in its consideration of the application for an emergency ex parte order of custody, and (2) improperly ordered him to make payments of $100 per week on the total arrearage of GAL fees.We dismiss as moot the portion of the appeal related to the defendant's first claim.With respect to the defendant's second claim, we affirm the order of the court finding an arrearage of GAL fees and ordering him to make weekly payments on the total arrearage.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43889 - Stanley v. Barone ("The self-represented plaintiff, Steven K. Stanley, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, employees of the Department of Correction (department), on the basis of statutory and qualified immunity. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his complaint because the immunities relied on by the court do not bar his claims brought against the defendants in their individual capacities. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Rights,
• Recent Opinions

AC44517 - Taylor v. Pollner ("In this quiet title action, the plaintiff, Christopher J. Taylor, appeals from the judgment of the trial court to the extent that the court awarded attorney's fees to the defendant, Lisa Pollner, pursuant to Practice Book § 1-21A. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in awarding monetary sanctions to compensate the defendant for her attorney's fees and that those fees were excessive, unreasonable, and clearly erroneous. We affirm the judgment of the trial court awarding attorney's fees to the defendant.")

AC44301 - Wooden v. Perez ("In this adverse possession action, the substitute plaintiff, Anthony E. Monelli, as administrator of the estate of the decedent, Lonnie Thomas, Sr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Dinanyelly E. Perez, on the ground that the substitute plaintiff lacked standing to maintain the action. The substitute plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly determined that he lacked standing to pursue the adverse possession claim because the decedent had devised the property at issue to a trust for the benefit of his children and, therefore, only the trustees of that testamentary trust, and not the executor or administrator of the decedent's estate, had standing to prosecute the present action. We disagree with the substitute plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44067 - Rider v. Rider ("The plaintiff, Patrick Rider, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his probate appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, he claims that the court incorrectly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over his appeal on the basis that it was untimely. We affirm the judgment.

---

Reading the relevant statutory scheme with the well established principles regarding the statutory right of appeal in probate cases, we conclude that a motion pursuant to § 45a-128 does not toll the appeal period for the underlying decision.Thus, the plaintiff's appeal from the decree approving the final account was untimely, and the Superior Court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.")

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions