AC45253 - Francis v. CIT Bank, N.A. (Entry and detainer; motion to open judgment of nonsuit; "In this civil action, the plaintiff, Johanna Francis, brought causes of action sounding in unlawful entry and detainer and trespass against the defendants CIT Bank, N.A., and Cascade Funding RM1 Alternative Holdings, LLC. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to open the judgment rendered by the trial court after it granted a motion for nonsuit filed by the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied her motion to open the judgment. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44694 - Napolitano v. Ace American Ins. Co. (“The defendant Ace American Insurance Company appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, Thomas Napolitano, doing business as Napolitano Roofing, as to counts one and two of the plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint, in which he sought a declaratory judgment and asserted a breach of contract claim, respectively. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in (1) granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because the court improperly determined that (a) the defendant’s notice of cancellation to the plaintiff, cancelling his workers’ compensation insurance policy, was ineffective and (b) the defendant breached its duty under the policy to defend or indemnify the plaintiff with respect to a workers’ compensation claim submitted by his employee, (2) awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff, as damages, in connection with his defense of the workers’ compensation claim and a lawsuit brought by the employee, and (3) awarding prejudgment statutory interest to the plaintiff relating to workers’ compensation payments that he made to his employee. In addition, the plaintiff cross appeals from the court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to strike count three of his fifth amended complaint, in which he asserted a claim of bad faith. The plaintiff argues on appeal that he pleaded legally sufficient allegations that the defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it refused to defend or indemnify him under his insurance policy. With respect to the defendant’s appeal, we reverse the summary judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and, as a result, we also vacate the attorney’s fees and prejudgment statutory interest awarded to the plaintiff—relief that was predicated on the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on count two. As to the plaintiff’s cross appeal, we reverse the decision of the trial court striking the third count of the plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint.”)

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Workers' Compensation Law

AC45512 - State v. DeCosta (Interfering with an officer; payment of fine pursuant to § 54-96a; “In sentencing the defendant, the court imposed only a fine of $200, which the defendant immediately and voluntarily paid before leaving the courthouse on the date the judgment was rendered. On appeal, the defendant claims that the judgment must be reversed because the court improperly did not advise him during its plea canvass that, by pleading guilty, he was waiving his right to a jury trial.”)

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

AC44542 - Stanziale v. Hunt (Negligence; contributory negligence; general verdict rule; "In this negligence action arising out of a motorcycle accident on Great Hill Road in Oxford on July 24, 2015, the plaintiff, Leonard Stanziale, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants, Betty A. Hunt and Harold W. Hunt, which was rendered upon the general verdict of a jury following the denial of the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict. On appeal, as in his motion to set aside, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied his pretrial motion in limine to redact from his medical records all statements as to the speed at which he was operating his motorcycle at the time of the accident, and (2) overruled his foundation and relevancy objection to the testimony of Harold Hunt, the owner of the motor vehicle that was allegedly being driven by his wife, Betty Hunt, at the time and place of the accident, as to the length of a skid mark he allegedly found, measured, and photographed in that location when he went there approximately three hours after the accident.

In response to the plaintiff's claims, the defendants argue first that the general verdict rule precludes our review of those claims, and, second, if we conclude that the general verdict rule does not bar our review of those claims, neither such claim requires the reversal of the judgment. For the reasons that follow, although we disagree with the defendants' contention that the general verdict rule bars our review of the plaintiff's claims, we agree with the defendants that neither such claim requires us to reverse the judgment of the trial court in this action.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

Thursday, April 27th

• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
  
• Stamford Law Library closed from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.

Friday, April 28th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• New London Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.

Monday, May 1st

• Danbury, Middletown, New Britain, Putnam, Torrington, and Waterbury law libraries are closed from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Tuesday, May 2nd

• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.

Wednesday, May 3rd

• Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries open at 11:00 a.m.

Thursday, May 4th

• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.

Friday, May 5th

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

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following new reports:

Money Transfer and Other Technology Services in Correctional Facilities - 2023-R-0099 - This report describes JPay and the services it provides. It describes how Connecticut and other states use JPay and whether any states subsidize JPay.

Domestic Violence-Related Legislation 2020-2022 - 2023-R-0102 - Provides a summary of the domestic violence-related legislation that passed over the last three legislative sessions (2020-2022).

Public Assistance Program Eligibility and Benefits Cliffs - 2023-R-0100 - This report discusses program eligibility when participants’ employment causes their income to exceed program limits in Medicaid, Temporary Family Assistance (TFA), and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It also discusses the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s “CLIFF Suite” tools that model the ways in which public benefits, taxes, tax credits, and wage increases interact.

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 42, for April 25, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 506 - 530)
• Volume 346: Orders (Pages 923 - 927)
• Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 219: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 71)
• Volume 219: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Connecticut Practice Book Amendments

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

The 2023 edition of our research guide on Employment Law and the Family has been posted to our research guides webpage.

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

AC44867 - ARVYS Protein, Inc. v. A/F Protein, Inc. (Arbitration; whether trial court improperly denied plaintiff's application to modify or vacate arbitration award; "The plaintiff, ARVYS Protein, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendant, A/F Protein, Inc., on the plaintiff's application to modify or vacate an arbitration award. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the arbitrator's award did not exceed the scope of submission by awarding noncontractual relief, (2) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by ignoring undisputed contract provisions that limited damages and disclaimed warranties, and (3) the award did not violate public policy because it did not arise from the unauthorized practice of law. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44780 - State v. Santiago (Dismissal of motion to correct an illegal sentence; “In the motion to correct, the defendant argued that he was serving the functional equivalent of a life sentence, despite being eligible for parole, and that, when his sentence was imposed, the sentencing court violated his rights by not taking into account his youth as a mitigating factor. The defendant claims that, in dismissing his motion, the court improperly (1) denied him the right to ‘an evidentiary hearing concerning the current state of science on the maturity, impulse control, and over receptiveness to peer pressure of [eighteen year olds], and the effect of science on Connecticut law’ and (2) concluded that he did not present a colorable claim that he was entitled to relief under the Connecticut and United States constitutions. We dismiss the appeal as moot.”)

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

AC45011 - O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (Employment discrimination; claim that trial court erred in affirming administrative decision of defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; "In the present case, the Superior Court concluded that the department was not liable because the employee who created the hostile work environment, Diane Krevolin, was not the plaintiff's "supervisor" pursuant to the definition adopted by the United States Supreme Court for Title VII purposes in Vance v. Ball State University, supra, 570 U.S. 424; that is, someone "empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the [plaintiff] . . . ." Id. The court determined that because Krevolin was not a supervisor, there was consequently "no merit to the plaintiff's argument that [the commission] should have imputed liability to [the department] on the basis of a supervisor theory of liability," and because the plaintiff did not challenge the decision on any other ground, it affirmed the decision of the commission in favor of the department.

On appeal to this court, the plaintiff asks us to conclude, contrary to the determination of the Superior Court, that the Vance definition of a "supervisor" for Title VII purposes does not apply to hostile work environment claims that are brought under CFEPA. She asks us, instead, to adopt a broader definition of the term for CFEPA purposes that would include employees like Krevolin who cannot "take tangible employment actions" but nonetheless control the day-to-day conditions of their subordinate's work. We conclude that the Superior Court properly determined that the Vance definition applies to claims brought under CFEPA, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court")

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

AC44911 - C. M. v. R. M. (Dissolution of Marriage; Postdissolution motion to relocate; Subject matter jurisdiction; "The defendant father, R. M., appeals from the granting of his postdissolution motion to move to New York City with the parties' two minor children, over the objection of the plaintiff mother, C. M. Despite obtaining the relief requested, the defendant filed the present appeal, claiming that the court improperly concluded that the move to New York City constituted a relocation under General Statutes § 46b-56d and that this determination requires that, in a future proceeding, the defendant satisfy a more difficult burden as compared to a motion to modify the parties' parenting plan filed pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-56. We dismiss the defendant's appeal for lack of aggrievement.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

Tuesday, April 25th

• Bridgeport Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, April 26th

• Bridgeport Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.
• Danbury Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.
• New Britain Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.
• New London Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.

Thursday, April 27th

• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
  
• Stamford Law Library closed from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.

Friday, April 28th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• New London Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20663 - Menard v. State ("This certified appeal raises questions regarding the recovery of underinsured motorist benefits by Connecticut state troopers injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an intoxicated driver. Two of the three plaintiffs in the underlying consolidated cases, Scott Menard and Darren Connolly (plaintiffs), appeal from the Appellate Court's judgment reversing the trial court's judgments in their favor and remanding the cases to the trial court with direction to render judgments for the defendant, the state of Connecticut (state). The third plaintiff, Robert Zdrojeski, withdrew his portion of the joint appeal to the Appellate Court and is not a party to this certified appeal. The plaintiffs contend that the Appellate Court improperly (1) affirmed the trial court's judgments insofar as the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits for alleged post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and (2) reversed the judgments insofar as the trial court determined that the state was not entitled to a reduction in the trial court's awards for sums received by the plaintiffs in settlement of a claim under Connecticut's Dram Shop Act, General Statutes § 30-102. We agree with the Appellate Court's conclusion as to the first issue, although on the basis of a different ground from the one relied on by that court. We disagree with its conclusion as to the second issue. We therefore reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 41, for April 18, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 487 - 506)
• Volume 346: Orders (Pages 919 - 923)
• Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 218: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 731 - 855)
• Volume 218: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 907)
• Volume 218: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

The 2023 edition of our research guide on Foreign Matrimonial, Custody, and Support Judgments in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides webpage. The content of this guide was formerly a part of the guide on Enforcement of Family and Foreign Matrimonial Judgments in Connecticut.

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

AC45114 - Fitzgerald v. Bridgeport (“The plaintiffs, Brian Fitzgerald, Steven Lougal, and Roderick G. Porter, captains in the Bridgeport Police Department (police department), and Anthony S. Armeno, deputy chief of the police department, commenced this action against the city of Bridgeport (city) and five other defendants, seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the defendants failed to follow the civil service provisions of the Bridgeport City Charter (city charter) in appointing Captain Rebeca Garcia to the position of assistant police chief of the police department. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief and declared that the city, Mayor Joseph Ganim, and Chief of Police A.J. Perez failed to adhere to the city charter and rules of the Bridgeport Civil Service Commission (commission) when appointing Garcia to the assistant police chief position on December 18, 2019. The court declined to grant the plaintiffs any injunctive relief.

On appeal, the defendants claim, among other things, that the court erred in concluding that David J. Dunn, the city’s personnel director, had not conducted a ‘‘proper noncompetitive examination’’ pursuant to § 211 of the city charter before Garcia was appointed to the assistant police chief position. After oral arguments in this appeal, however, Garcia ceased serving in the assistant police chief position due to her retirement from the police department. In light of this development, the defendants now claim that the appeal is moot and that vacatur of the trial court’s judgment is warranted. We agree with the defendants, dismiss the appeal as moot, and vacate the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC44316 - Wolfel v. Wolfel (“The plaintiffs, Kenneth and Rodney, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court affirming in part and reversing in part the decree of the Probate Court holding that they, as cotrustees of the trust, violated their fiduciary duties and ordering them to reimburse Lawrence, the defendant, for his equal share of the trust assets. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the Superior Court (1) exceeded its authority by addressing issues that they did not raise in their appeal from the decree of the Probate Court, and (2) erroneously found that Kenneth failed to prove that he had paid $552,271 into the trust to reimburse it for distributions made to him for his personal benefit. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.”)

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20623 - Dobie v. New Haven ("In this certified appeal, we are asked to decide whether an open manhole on a public roadway, uncovered after a snowplow driver negligently knocked off its cover only seconds before a motorist drove into the manhole, constitutes a "highway defect," making General Statutes § 13a-149, our highway defect statute, the motorist's exclusive remedy for injuries he sustained as a result. The plaintiff, William Dobie, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's judgment, rendered after a jury verdict in his favor, on one count of negligence as against the named defendant, the city of New Haven. The Appellate Court held that the highway defect statute was in fact the plaintiff's exclusive remedy. Dobie v. New Haven, 204 Conn. App. 583, 595, 254 A.3d 321 (2021). We affirm the Appellate Court's judgment.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45207- Trejo v. Yale New Haven Hospital, Inc. (“The court heard oral arguments on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on October 25, 2021. On December 14, 2021, the court issued a memorandum of decision granting the defendant’s motion. In its decision, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to meet his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of his gender or sexual orientation. The court also found that, even if the plaintiff had satisfied his burden of establishing a prima facie case, the defendant presented extensive, uncontroverted evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his discharge—namely, the plaintiff’s persistent performance difficulties and low standardized exam scores—that the plaintiff could not show was pretextual. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s retaliation claim on the basis that there was no evidence that the plaintiff complained about sexual orientation or gender discrimination before he received his nonrenewal notice. The plaintiff timely appealed from the court’s judgment.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On the basis of our examination of the record, and the briefs and arguments of the parties, and applying the well established principles that govern our review of a court’s decision to grant a motion for summary judgment in cases alleging violations of the act; see Stubbs v. ICare Management, LLC, 198 Conn. App. 511, 520–22, 233 A.3d 1170 (2020); we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. See, e.g., Luth v. OEM Controls, Inc., 203 Conn. App. 673, 252 A.3d 406 (2021). Because the court’s memorandum of decision aptly addresses the plaintiff’s arguments, we adopt its thorough and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and applicable law on these issues. See Trejo v. Yale New Haven Hospital, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-19-6112326-S (December 14, 2021) (reprinted at 218 Conn. App. , A.3d ). It would serve no useful purpose to repeat the discussion contained therein. See, e.g., U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Dallas, 213 Conn. App. 483, 487, 278 A.3d 1138 (2022); Luth v. OEM Controls, Inc., supra, 203 Conn. App. 677; Phadnis v. Great Expression Dental Centers of Connecticut, P.C., 170 Conn. App. 79, 81, 153 A.3d 687 (2017).

The judgment is affirmed.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions