The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 48, for May 31, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 343: Connecticut Reports (Pages 468 - 494)
• Volume 343: Orders (Pages 916 - 919)
• Volume 343: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 212: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 637 - 790)
• Volume 212: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

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

Thursday, June 2nd

• Putnam Law Library closes at 3:15 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.

Friday, June 3rd

• Torrington Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20314 - State v. Abraham (Home invasion, attempt to commit assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, two counts of risk of injury to a child; “ On appeal, the defendant raises three claims: (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes of conviction; (2) the jury’s verdict of guilty of attempt to commit assault in the first degree and reckless endangerment was legally inconsistent; and (3) his conviction of home invasion and attempt to commit assault in the first degree violates the double jeopardy clause of the United States constitution. We affirm the judgment of conviction.”)

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

AC44218, AC44656 - D2E Holdings, LLC v. Corp. for Urban Home Ownership of New Haven (“These consolidated appeals arise from a dispute among the plaintiff, D2E Holdings, LLC (D2E Holdings), the defendant, third-party plaintiff, and third-party counterclaim defendant, Corporation for Urban Home Ownership of New Haven (CUHO), and the third-party defendant and third-party counterclaim plaintiff, Dragon Bridge Management, LLC (Dragon Bridge).In Docket No. AC 44218, D2E Holdings and Dragon Bridge appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of CUHO. In Docket No. AC 44656, D2E Holdings appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to open the judgment in favor of CUHO. The parties advance three claims in their appeals. In AC 44218, D2E Holdings claims that the court improperly rendered judgment in favor of CUHO on D2E Holdings' breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim; in the same docket, Dragon Bridge claims that the court improperly rendered judgment in favor of CUHO on Dragon Bridge's breach of contract counterclaim. In AC 44656, D2E Holdings claims that the court incorrectly determined that it failed to make a threshold showing of fraud in order to warrant limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing on its motion to open. We affirm the judgments of the court.”)

AC43957 - Li v. Yaggi (“On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that they (1) failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining a written mortgage commitment, (2) did not provide adequate notice to the defendant that they were unable to obtain a mortgage commitment, and (3) waived any right they might have had to the deposits. We conclude that the court properly determined that the plaintiffs did not provide adequate notice to the defendant that they were unable to obtain a mortgage commitment pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC43969 - Epright v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. ("In its writ of error, the plaintiff in error claims that the sanctions order issued by the trial court was improper because, among other things, (1) the plaintiff in error complied with the rules of practice governing the disclosure of expert witnesses, (2) no rule of practice prohibited the ex parte communications here at issue, and (3) the prerequisites necessary to justify imposition of a discovery sanction were not satisfied in this instance.The plaintiff in error also argues that, to the extent the rules of practice are interpreted to prohibit the ex parte communications in question, the rules are unconstitutionally vague because they fail to provide adequate notice that such communications are prohibited. Because we conclude that our rules of practice do not clearly prohibit ex parte communications between an attorney for a party and a testifying expert witness previously disclosed by an opposing party, the order of sanctions in this case cannot stand. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC44127 - Ghio v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. ("In this writ of error, the insureds claim that the court improperly concluded that they waived the attorney-client privilege because (1) the communications were produced pursuant to a court order, (2) Liberty had a duty to preserve the privilege and, therefore, could not have waived the insureds' privilege by producing the communications, and (3) the court abused its discretion in finding that the privilege was waived without holding an evidentiary hearing or reviewing the relevant communications. We agree with the insureds' final claim and, accordingly, grant the writ of error and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing.")

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20525 - State v. Marrero (Conviction of home invasion, burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree; “On appeal, the defendant contends that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the prosecutor had not engaged in prosecutorial impropriety by using leading questions during his direct examination of a hostile witness. 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.”)

AC44146 - State v. Ghant (Unlawful restraint in the first degree, assault in the third degree, threatening in the second degree; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his right to self-representation under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution1 by denying his request to represent himself and (2) violated his right to confront the witnesses against him under the sixth amendment by improperly limiting cross-examination of the state’s key witness. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC44830 - Pringle v. Pattis ("The self-represented plaintiff, Barry Pringle, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, Norman Pattis, Frederick M. O'Brien and Daniel M. Erwin. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the exoneration rule, which generally provides that a legal malpractice claim is not ripe for adjudication unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the relevant underlying conviction has been invalidated. We reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC44830 Concurrence - Pringle v. Pattis

• Posted in:
• Legal Malpractice & Attorney Discipline Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44387 - Fogel v. Fogel (Dissolution of marriage; postjudgment proceedings; motion to modify alimony; whether trial court properly granted defendant's motion for modification of alimony; "In this matter arising from the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the plaintiff, Angela Fogel, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a motion to modify alimony filed by the defendant, Rafael Fogel. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) finding that the defendant had been involuntarily terminated from his employment, (2) declining to consider "phantom income" for purposes of determining the defendant's alimony obligation, and (3) failing to consider all of the factors set forth in General Statutes § 46b-82 in deciding whether to modify the defendant's alimony obligation. We 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 reports:

Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA) - 2022-R-0087 - This report provides an overview of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), including violations, enforcement, and penalties. It updates OLR Report 2017-R-0154.

Motor Vehicle Fines and Charges Remitted to Municipalities - 2022-R-0023 - This report describes the motor vehicle violations for which the state must remit a portion of fines or other charges it collects back to the municipality in which the violation occurred. This report updates OLR Report 2019-R-0181.

Income Tax Deductions for Retirement Income - 2022-R-0099 - This report briefly explains the state tax deductions for Social Security, pension and annuity, and individual retirement account (IRA) income. This report updates OLR Report 2021-R-0168.

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

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

Thursday, May 26th

• Danbury Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.

Friday, May 27th

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20563 - State v. Myers ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims in his motions to correct and that (1) he was entitled to resentencing in both cases because the sentencing court failed to consider his youth as a mitigating factor, in violation of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 476–77, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), and General Statutes § 54-91g, (2) the structure of his two sentences deprived him of a meaningful opportunity for parole because it resulted in a later parole eligibility date than he otherwise would have been entitled to under General Statutes § 54-125a (f) (1), and (3) his parole eligibility date violated his right to equal protection under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 20, of the Connecticut constitution. The defendant further contends that the trial court improperly denied his claim that his parole eligibility date, as calculated by the board, violated the terms of his plea agreement, in violation of his right to due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, §§ 8 and 9, of the Connecticut constitution. We affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.")

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 47, for May 24, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Replacement Pages
• Volume 343: Connecticut Reports (Pages 368 - 468)
• Volume 343: Orders (Pages 912 - 915)
• Volume 343: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 212: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 556 - 636)
• Volume 212: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
• Volume 212: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

The 2022 edition of the research guide on Request to Revise has been added to our research guides collection.

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

AC44871 - Bennetta v. Derby (Public nuisance; motion to strike; claim that trial court erred in granting defendant city's motion to strike; "In this public nuisance action, the plaintiff, Arlene Bennetta, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it granted the motion filed by the defendant, the city of Derby, to strike the plaintiff's substitute complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in striking her complaint because she properly alleged that the defendant created the nuisance by a positive act as required by General Statutes § 52-557n. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44317 - State v. Herman K. (“Before this court is the defendant’s appeal from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1) and carrying a dangerous weapon in violation of General Statutes § 53-206 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court, Vitale, J., improperly denied the defendant’s motion for disqualification at his sentencing hearing based upon what he contends was the appearance of partiality. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC43613 - Pishal v. Pishal (Dissolution of marriage; motion to modify alimony; whether trial court improperly relied on rule of practice (§ 15-8) in denying defendant's motion to modify alimony; "In this postdissolution action, the defendant, Victor Pishal, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify his alimony payments to the plaintiff, Cathie Pishal. The defendant claims that (1) the court improperly relied on Practice Book § 15-8, which applies to civil actions and not family matters, in concluding that he did not establish a prima facie case; (2) even if the court properly relied on § 15-8, it nonetheless improperly weighed the evidence and failed to properly consider whether he had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case; (3) the court abused its discretion in concluding that he was not entitled to the termination of his alimony obligation because the plaintiff was cohabitating with a third party; and (4) the court abused its discretion in concluding that he was not entitled to a modification of his alimony obligation because of a substantial change in his financial circumstances. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44570 - Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (Employment discrimination; whether trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's appeal and affirmed decision of defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; "The plaintiff, the Board of Education of the City of Waterbury, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal and affirming the decision of the named defendant, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), which concluded that the plaintiff had discriminated against the defendant Cynthia Leonard on the basis of her physical disability by failing to interview and promote her. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the trial court improperly affirmed the commission's award of back pay because the award was not supported by substantial evidence and (2) the commission exceeded its statutory authority in awarding compensatory damages. We disagree with the plaintiff's first claim and decline to review the second claim because it is unpreserved. We, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20553 - Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction (Statutory presumption that a successive petition for a writ of habeas beyond statutory time limits is unreasonable delay; § 52-470 (d) and (e); “The petitioner, Eric Thomas Kelsey, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the habeas court, which dismissed his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus following its determination that the petitioner had failed to establish good cause for the delayed filing of that second petition. See Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 202 Conn. App. 21, 43–44, 244 A.3d 171 (2020). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly (1) reviewed the habeas court’s dismissal of his second petition pursuant to § 52-470 (e) under the abuse of discretion standard, and (2) concluded that the habeas court correctly determined that the petitioner had failed to establish good cause for the untimely filing of his second petition. We disagree with both claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

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

SC20526 - Centerplan Construction Co., LLC v. Hartford (Contracts; "The case before us involves a dispute over the party responsible for delays in constructing Dunkin Donuts Park, home of Hartford's minor league baseball team, the Yard Goats, and a key part of the planned economic revitalization of Connecticut's capital city. As often occurs with such projects, the parties blame one another for the delays. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court correctly concluded, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs, the project's developer, DoNo Hartford, LLC (DoNo), and the project's design-builder, Centerplan Construction Company, LLC (Centerplan), "controlled" the architect and were therefore responsible for any mistakes in and changes to the stadium's design. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that, in its pretrial interpretation of various agreements the plaintiffs and the defendant, the city of Hartford (city), had executed to construct the ballpark, the trial court incorrectly concluded that the agreements plainly had assigned to the plaintiffs both the power to direct the design of the ballpark as well as the responsibility for the architect's errors and omissions. After the trial court's ruling, a jury found the plaintiffs responsible for failing to complete the stadium by the contractually agreed on deadline, returned a verdict against the plaintiffs on their claim against the city, and awarded the city $335,000 in liquidated damages on its counterclaim.

Upon our careful review of the contracts at issue, we conclude that, contrary to the trial court's pretrial ruling, the parties' contracts did not unambiguously grant the plaintiffs legal control of the architect and the stadium's design across all relevant time periods. Because the trial court's pretrial ruling improperly took several questions of fact from the jury's consideration, we must reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45087 - In re Marcquan C. ("The respondent mother, Monica C., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to revoke the commitment of her minor child, Marcquan C., to the custody of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner). On appeal, the respondent contends that the court erred in finding that cause for commitment continued to exist. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions