SC20447 - State v. Graham (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court erred in admitting the statement of an accomplice that inculpated the defendant, in violation of § 8-6 (4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and the defendant’s sixth amendment right to confrontation, (2) the prosecutor committed impropriety by presenting a generic tailoring argument during closing argument, which violated the defendant’s confrontation rights under our state constitution, and (3) the prosecutor committed impropriety by eliciting certain information contained in two witnesses’ cooperation agreements and by presenting closing argument related to those materials. We affirm the judgment of conviction.”)

• Concurrence

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

AC43880 - Bruno v. Whipple ("The plaintiff, Lisa Bruno, appeals, and the defendant Heritage Homes Construction Company, LLC, cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court denying their respective motions for attorney's fees. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by failing to award her (1) attorney's fees pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb and/or (2) attorney's fees and other litigation-related costs pursuant to a fee-shifting provision of a construction contract executed by the parties. On cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied its motion for attorney's fees because the defendant, not the plaintiff, is the prevailing party in this matter. We conclude that the court did not err in denying both motions for attorney's fees. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC44804 - Hassett v. Secor's Auto Center, Inc. ("In this action arising from the purchase of a used motor vehicle by the plaintiff, Erin C. Hassett, from the defendant, Secor's Auto Center, Inc., a used car dealer, the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff with respect to four of the five claims set forth in the complaint and awarded the plaintiff $11,000 in damages. On appeal from that judgment, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied her motion for additur. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44555 - Doe v. Bemer ("The plaintiffs John Doe and Bob Doe, who had brought an action against the defendant Bruce Bemer that had been withdrawn in accordance with settlement agreements of the parties, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion for an order restoring the action to the docket (motion to restore) and from the court's denials of their motion for reargument and reconsideration and amended motion for reargument and reconsideration. The plaintiffs also filed an amended appeal challenging the court's failure to adjudicate and marking off their motion to enforce the settlement agreements, its denial of their motion for reconsideration relating to the disposition of their motion to enforce the settlement agreements, and the denial of their motion to terminate an appellate stay. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the denial of their motion to restore constituted harmful error, (2) the denial of their motion to reconsider the denial of their motion to restore was clearly erroneous, (3) the hearing on their motion to restore was inadequate and the court improperly failed to hold a hearing "with testimony from witnesses regarding the enforceability of the agreements" in accordance with Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804, 626 A.2d 729 (1993) (Audubon), (4) the court did not have the authority to refuse to rule on the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreements, and (5) the court improperly refused to grant their motion to terminate an appellate stay and to order enforcement of the settlement agreements. We disagree with the plaintiffs and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44699 - Bialik v. Bialik ("The plaintiff, Jodi Bialik, appeals from the postjudgment ruling of the trial court granting the motion of the defendant, Scott Bialik, for a modification of his alimony obligation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) failing to consider the impact of funds received by the defendant's dental practice from the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP); see 15 U.S.C. § 636 (a) (36); and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program; see 15 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (2); both of which are administered by the United States Small Business Administration (SBA), in calculating the defendant's annual adjusted gross earnings, as defined in the parties' separation agreement, and (2) its treatment of disability insurance premiums paid by the defendant's business. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44824 - Fiveash v. Connecticut Conference of Municipalities

AC44824 - Fiveash v. Delong ("In these employment discrimination actions, the plaintiff, Sharon Fiveash, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency, Inc. (CIRMA), Faith Brooks, Joseph DeLong, and Ronald W. Thomas. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44604 - Kabel v. Rosen ("The plaintiff, Reuben Kabel, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a bench trial, in favor of the defendant Beth Rosen, in her capacity as executrix of the estate of the decedent, Marcia Chambers, who was the plaintiff's aunt. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in failing to consider his request for an equitable remedy (i.e., 'to alter the disposition of property under the distribution plan set forth under the decedent's will') that effectively would have resulted in the reformation of the decedent's unambiguous will, which he claims was necessary in light of a mistake that he alleges she made concerning whether a particular individual retirement account would be included in her residuary estate. We conclude that the court did not err in refusing to consider the plaintiff's request for an equitable remedy in the form of reformation of an unambiguous will, a remedy that has never been recognized in Connecticut. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43486 - In re Probate Appeal of Tunick ("The plaintiff, Stephen Tunick, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from a probate decree approving the payment of attorney's fees to the defendant, Richard S. DiPreta. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that he was not aggrieved by the probate decree and (2) failed to consider certain trust documents in rendering its judgment. We do not reach the merits of these claims because we conclude that the probate decree at issue in this appeal was superseded by a subsequent probate decree, which is the subject of a separate probate appeal pending in the Superior Court, and, therefore, we dismiss this appeal as moot.")

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research has recently published some new reports:

Risk-Limiting Audits - 2022-R-0082 - This report describes risk-limiting audits (RLA) (post-election audits), including how they work and where they are currently used in the United States.

Undocumented Immigration and State Law - 2022-R-0195 - Over the last 10 years, has the Connecticut legislature passed any laws that extend benefits, privileges, or protections to undocumented immigrants? To what extent is the state required to cooperate with federal immigration laws?

Statutory CUTPA Violations - 2022-R-0199 - This report lists the state’s statutory CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act) violations. It provides each violation’s statutory reference (or the public act creating the violation) and a brief description of the violation. The report updates OLR Report 2021-R-0213.

Connecticut Whistleblower Laws - 2022-R-0005 - Summarizes Connecticut’s whistleblower laws. This report updates information in OLR Report 2009-R-0366.

Connecticut Prison Population Over the Last Five Years - 2022-R-0200 - This report provides statistics on the Connecticut prison population for the last five years. It updates OLR report 2016-R-0259.

Recent Juvenile Justice Measures - 2022-R-0148 - Summarizes juvenile justice measures enacted over the past five legislative sessions (2018–2022).

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

Wednesday, September 28th

• Middletown Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, September 29th

• Torrington Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Friday, September 29th

• Rockville Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 13, for September 27, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 215 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 5 - 10
• Volume 344: Connecticut Reports (Pages 777 - 825)
• Volume 344: Orders (Pages 904 - 904)
• Volume 344: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 215: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 384 - 463)
• Volume 215: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
• Volume 215: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

SC20518 - Kovachich v. Dept. of Mental Health and Addiction Services (“We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal to determine whether (1) the written communications improperly were admitted into evidence under § 4-8 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, (2) the defendant suffered substantial prejudice as a result, and (3) any of the other evidentiary errors identified by the Appellate Court were harmful. See Kovachich v. Dept. of Mental Health and Addiction Services, 335 Conn. 958, 958–59, 239 A.3d 320 (2020). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the written communications into evidence and that the other evidentiary errors identified by the Appellate Court were harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• SC20518 Dissent - Kovachich v. Dept. of Mental Health and Addiction Services

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43811 - Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. State ("This appeal arises out of a protracted dispute between the plaintiff, the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, and the defendants, the state of Connecticut and Robert Klee, the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection. The plaintiff claims that it is owed compensation pursuant to the state's sale of land and associated mortgages in which it claims to have a property interest, and thus filed a complaint alleging an unconstitutional taking of its property without compensation and a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint, from which the plaintiff has appealed. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the judgment of the trial court dismissing its complaint in its entirety. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43811 Concurrence - Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. State

• Posted in:
• Civil Rights,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44524 - Adams v. Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co. (Negligent entrustment; summary judgment; "The plaintiffs, John S. Adams and Mary Lou Hanney, brought the underlying action as coadministrators of the estate of their son, Ryan Michael Adams, who was eighteen years old when he died on September 20, 2015, in the airplane crash that also claimed the life of the eighteen year old, newly licensed pilot of the airplane, Cathryn Depuy. The plaintiffs now appeal from the summary judgment rendered against them on the two counts of their complaint brought against the defendant James W. Depuy, the father of the deceased pilot, which sounded in negligence and negligent entrustment.

The plaintiffs claim on appeal that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment with respect to the negligent entrustment count. In particular, they claim that genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute regarding the defendant's rental of the Cessna 150H airplane that his daughter was piloting when it crashed, which, the plaintiffs contend, if proven, would demonstrate that he had the requisite control over the airplane to establish that he negligently entrusted the airplane to his daughter. We conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the negligent entrustment count because the undisputed facts demonstrate that, assuming he rented the airplane for his daughter's use, he nevertheless lacked the necessary control over the airplane to meet an essential element of a cause of action sounding in negligent entrustment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44284 - Clerk of the Common Council v. Freedom of Information Commission (Administrative appeals; alleged violations of Freedom of Information Act (§ 1-200 et seq.); "These consolidated appeals arise out of an investigation by the city of Middletown (city) into alleged improprieties by the former mayor and the city's subsequent refusal to provide unredacted records related to that investigation on the ground that the records were not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (act), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq. The defendant Freedom of Information Commission (commission) appeals from the judgments of the Superior Court in Docket No. AC 44284, sustaining the appeal of the plaintiff, the Clerk of the Common Council for the city (clerk of the common council), and in Docket No. AC 44295, sustaining the appeal of the plaintiffs Sebastian Giuliano and Mary Bartolotta from the commission's decisions ordering disclosure of unredacted billing and email records, respectively, after rejecting the city's claims that the information at issue was either protected personnel or similar files or subject to the attorney-client privilege. In AC 44284, the commission claims that the court erred in (1) concluding that the attorney billing records were personnel or similar files pursuant to General Statutes § 1-210 (b) (2); (2) making a factual finding that the disclosure of the redacted information would constitute an invasion of personal privacy and was thus prohibited under § 1-210 (b) (2); and (3) concluding that certain information in attorney billing records was exempt from disclosure as privileged attorney-client communications pursuant to § 1-210 (b) (10). In AC 44295, the commission claims that the court erred in concluding that certain email communications also were privileged attorney-client communications protected under § 1-210 (b) (10). We agree with the commission except with respect to the issue of whether the invoices constitute personnel or similar files. Therefore, in AC 44284, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the court. In AC 44295, we reverse the judgment of the court.")

AC44295 - Giuliano v. Freedom of Information Commission (Administrative appeals; alleged violations of Freedom of Information Act (§ 1-200 et seq.); "These consolidated appeals arise out of an investigation by the city of Middletown (city) into alleged improprieties by the former mayor and the city's subsequent refusal to provide unredacted records related to that investigation on the ground that the records were not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (act), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq. The defendant Freedom of Information Commission (commission) appeals from the judgments of the Superior Court in Docket No. AC 44284, sustaining the appeal of the plaintiff, the Clerk of the Common Council for the city (clerk of the common council), and in Docket No. AC 44295, sustaining the appeal of the plaintiffs Sebastian Giuliano and Mary Bartolotta from the commission's decisions ordering disclosure of unredacted billing and email records, respectively, after rejecting the city's claims that the information at issue was either protected personnel or similar files or subject to the attorney-client privilege. In AC 44284, the commission claims that the court erred in (1) concluding that the attorney billing records were personnel or similar files pursuant to General Statutes § 1-210 (b) (2); (2) making a factual finding that the disclosure of the redacted information would constitute an invasion of personal privacy and was thus prohibited under § 1-210 (b) (2); and (3) concluding that certain information in attorney billing records was exempt from disclosure as privileged attorney-client communications pursuant to § 1-210 (b) (10). In AC 44295, the commission claims that the court erred in concluding that certain email communications also were privileged attorney-client communications protected under § 1-210 (b) (10). We agree with the commission except with respect to the issue of whether the invoices constitute personnel or similar files. Therefore, in AC 44284, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the court. In AC 44295, we reverse the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Freedom of Information Law

The 2022 edition of our research guide on Motion for Clarification has been posted to our research guides webpage.

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

SC20512 - State v. Flores (Home invasion; burglary in the first degree; attempt to commit robbery in the first; conspiracy to commit home invasion; “On appeal, he claims that (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress his written statement to the police, who failed to comply with the requirements of General Statutes § 54-1o, (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the entirety of the cooperation agreement between the state and his accomplice, Benjamin J. Bellavance, including portions regarding Bellavance’s obligation to testify truthfully, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, home invasion predicated on attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, home invasion predicated on burglary in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit home invasion. We affirm the judgment of conviction.”)

• Concurrence

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 12, for September 20, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 344: Connecticut Reports (Pages 696 - 776)
• Volume 344: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 215: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 234 - 383)
• Volume 215: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 215: 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

Tuesday, September 20th

• Putnam Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Wednesday, September 21st

• New London Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

Thursday, September 22nd

• New Britain Law Library opens at 12:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
• Torrington Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

Friday, September 23rd

• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC44179 - State v. Gamer (“On appeal, the defendant principally claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that he wilfully failed to pay restitution and (2) the court abused its discretion by imposing a term of imprisonment in light of his purported inability to pay restitution. We conclude that the court neither erred in finding that the defendant wilfully failed to pay restitution nor abused its discretion in revoking the defendant’s probation and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC43985 - Ayuso v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because (1) the prosecutor’s presentation of false or misleading testimony at his criminal trial violated his due process right to a fair trial, (2) his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel, (3) his appellate counsel’s performance was deficient and deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of appellate counsel, and (4) the habeas court committed an evidentiary error that entitles him to a new habeas trial. We dismiss the appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law

AC44541 - Lehane v. Murray (Dissolution of marriage; motion to modify custody of minor child; "In this postdissolution matter, the plaintiff, Danielle Lehane, appeals from the judgment of the trial court modifying the parties' custody of and visitation with their minor child. The court awarded sole legal and physical custody to the defendant, James Murray, and awarded the plaintiff certain visitation rights. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly delegated its judicial authority to a nonjudicial party by giving the defendant the authority to "alter, change or modify" her visitation schedule, (2) exceeded its authority by ordering her to submit to a psychological evaluation and to provide the results to the defendant, and (3) improperly awarded the defendant the right to claim the child as a dependent for income tax purposes where the dissolution judgment included a clear and unambiguous provision awarding the plaintiff the nonmodifiable right to do so. We disagree with the plaintiff's claim that the court improperly delegated its judicial authority to the defendant, but we agree with her other two claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions