AC47188 - Begley v. State (“The plaintiff, Timothy Begley, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant James Rovella on his claim alleging that he was transferred in retaliation for filing a report of another police officer’s sexual harassment of a female officer in violation of General Statutes § 46a-60 (b) (4). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendant because it improperly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether he had established a prima facie case of retaliation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

Friday, August 29

• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• New Haven Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 12:00 p.m.
• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

Monday, September 1

• All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries will be closed for the holiday.

Tuesday, September 2

• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, September 3

• New London Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
• Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, September 4

• New Britain Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
• Bridgeport Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library is closed.

Friday, September 5

• Danbury Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC46510, AC46730 - Sobin v. Orthopaedic Sports Specialists, P.C. ("Before us are two appeals and a cross appeal that arise out of an action for wrongful death and loss of consortium brought against the defendant, Orthopaedic Sports Specialists, P.C., by the plaintiffs—Linda Sobin (Sobin) as the administratrix of the estate of her husband, Peter Sobin (Peter), and Sobin in her individual capacity—following Peter's death from a pulmonary embolism that occurred during his recovery from knee replacement surgery.

In Docket No. AC 46510, the defendant appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs on the jury's verdict awarding $5.5 million in damages for wrongful death due to medical negligence and $3 million in damages for loss of consortium.The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to strike certain responses given by the plaintiffs' medical expert in response to hypothetical questions that, the defendant argues, relied on facts not in evidence; (2) failed to grant a mistrial based on the plaintiffs' counsel's allegedly inflammatory and unduly prejudicial examination of a key witness; (3) precluded the defendant's medical expert from testifying regarding the origin and size of the pulmonary embolism; and (4) instructed the jury that it could award damages for Peter's "death itself" in addition to damages for pain and suffering.

In Docket No. AC 46730, the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying, in part, the plaintiffs' motion for offer of compromise interest. They claim that the court improperly declined to award offer of compromise interest with respect to Sobin's loss of consortium damages. The defendant filed a cross appeal in which it claims that the court should not have awarded any offer of compromise interest. In particular, the defendant argues that the purported offer of compromise was not a proper offer to settle and withdraw the action but an offer to stipulate to a judgment, which, the defendant asserts, rendered it invalid as an offer of compromise.

We disagree with the claims raised by the parties in both appeals and the cross appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the court."

• Posted in:
• Medical Malpractice Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20802 - State v. McFarland ("In August, 1987, the decomposed bodies of the victims, Fred Harris and his son, Gregory Harris, were found murdered in an apartment they shared in Hamden. The crime went unsolved until 2019, when scientific advancements in DNA testing led to the arrest of the defendant, Willie McFarland. The defendant now appeals from his conviction of both murders, following a jury trial in 2022. The primary issue on appeal is whether the thirty-two year delay between the 1987 murders and his 2019 arrest violated the defendant's right to due process under the federal and state constitutions. The defendant also claims that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) declining to order a new competency evaluation after previously finding him competent to stand trial, and (2) finding that a deceased witness' statements included in police reports were not admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule because they did not manifest the required guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability. We affirm the judgment of conviction.")

• SC20802 Concurrence - State v. McFarland
• SC20802 Second Concurrence - State v. McFarland
• SC20802 Third Concurrence - State v. McFarland

AC47138 - State v. William A. ("The defendant, William A., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) pursuant to Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), the state violated his fifth amendment right to remain silent when the prosecutor impermissibly asked a question and elicited testimony during the state's case-in-chief and commented during closing argument about the defendant's post-Miranda silence, (2) the prosecutor's improper question about the defendant's post-Miranda silence implicated the defendant's constitutional right to have the state prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and thereby implied that the defendant had to prove his innocence, in violation of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), (3) the prosecutor engaged in improprieties during the trial and closing argument that deprived the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial, and (4) the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury on consciousness of guilt when there was no evidence to support such an instruction and the instruction did not comply with the model Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions. We agree that the prosecutor impermissibly asked a question and elicited testimony about the defendant's post-Miranda silence in violation of Doyle and conclude that the state has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial.")

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

AC47732 - Charter Oak Health Center, Inc. v. Barcelona (“In this corporate governance dispute, the plaintiffs, Charter Oak Health Center, Inc. (Charter Oak), and Adrian Wood, Joel Cruz, Martin John, Eileen Alvarado, and Leslie Arroyo, in their capacity as members of the board of directors of Charter Oak and on behalf of Charter Oak, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their action against the defendants, Veronica Barcelona, Claudius McNish, and Lolita Young, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly dismissed the action because the individual plaintiffs have standing pursuant to General Statutes § 33-1089. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court.”)

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

AC46424 - Berglass v. Dworkin ("The plaintiff, Steven Berglass, trustee of the Steven Berglass Revocable Living Trust, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint against the defendants, Heidi Dworkin and Jay Dworkin. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his action without providing notice and the opportunity to be heard following a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction, to which the defendants had filed an objection. He further claims that the court improperly made findings of fact in the absence of any evidence. We agree with the plaintiff as to both of his claims, and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC46632 - Surgent v. Surgent ("In this postdissolution matter, the plaintiff, Robert Surgent, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting his motion for modification of unallocated child support and alimony payable to the defendant, Geraldine Surgent. The plaintiff contends that the court, in modifying his alimony obligation, improperly (1) considered the defendant's claim that he had failed to share with her the proceeds of a postdissolution sale of stock when it is undisputed that no motion raising that issue had been filed with the court, and (2) modified a nonmodifiable term of the alimony award. We agree with the plaintiff as to the first claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court only with respect to the order pertaining to the postdissolution sale of the stock.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47425 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Stacy Smith, appeals, following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in advising him with respect to a pretrial plea offer from the state. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

The 2025 edition of our research guide on Marriage in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides webpage.

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

The 2025 edition of our research guide on Legal Separation in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 9, for August 26, 2025 is now available.

Table of Contents
Volume 353: Connecticut Reports (Pages 97 - 169)
Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 234: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 502 - 696)
Volume 234: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

SC20781 - State v. Jacques ("The defendant, Jean Jacques, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his state constitutional right to a probable cause hearing by denying his request for a second probable cause hearing after this court reversed his previous conviction and remanded the case for a new trial in State v. Jacques, 332 Conn. 271, 294, 210 A.3d 533 (2019), (2) violated his confrontation clause rights under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, as well as abused its discretion, by admitting Tywan Jenkins' written statement to the police as a prior inconsistent statement under State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743, 513 A.2d 86, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S. Ct. 597, 93 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986), and (3) abused its discretion in finding that the state had made a prima facie showing that the testimony of Danny Vazquez, a jailhouse informant, was reliable and admissible under General Statutes § 54-86p. We affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

Friday, August 22

• New Britain Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
• Danbury Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.

Monday, August 25

• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

Tuesday, August 26

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• New Britain Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.

Wednesday, August 27

• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, August 28

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
• New Britain Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.

Friday, August 29

• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• New Haven Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 12:00 p.m.
• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC46788 - Dushay v. Southern Connecticut Hockey League, LLC ("The plaintiff Connor Dushay appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Southern Connecticut Hockey League, LLC, on his claim of negligence relating to injuries he sustained during a hockey practice. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly concluded that the defendant did not owe him a duty of care, and (2) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wonderland of Ice Associates, Inc. (Wonderland), was acting as the defendant's agent or apparent agent, or with apparent authority, at the time of the incident in question. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC47616 - Matusz v. Wellmore Behavioral Health, Inc. ("The plaintiff, Robert P. Matusz, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Wellmore Behavioral Health, Inc., on his claim that a fire caused by the defendant's negligence caused damage to his rental property. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) failed to provide his requested charge to the jury regarding a landlord's obligations to maintain a leased premises and (2) granted the defendant's motion in limine to preclude testimony and evidence of noneconomic damages. We conclude that the plaintiff's first claim is not reviewable due to inadequate briefing. As to his second claim, we determine that, even if we assume, arguendo, that the court erred in granting the defendant's motion in limine, any such error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC47020 - Clark v. Employees' Review Board ("The self-represented plaintiff, Marilee Corr Clark, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant Employees' Review Board (board), finding that the decision of the Department of Revenue Services (department) to terminate the plaintiff's employment was not arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause pursuant to General Statutes § 5-202 (c). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court failed to utilize the proper "just cause" standard applicable to permanent state employees, (2) the court made certain improper factual findings that were not made by the board, and (3) the board's findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. We affirm the judgment of the court dismissing the plaintiff's administrative appeal.")

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

AC47318 - L. F. v. S. F. (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court, without holding a hearing, improperly denied her request for leave, which primarily alleged that the custody and visitation order in place contained an impermissible delegation of judicial authority. We reverse the judgment of the trial court denying the plaintiff’s request for leave and we remand the matter for a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for modification.”)

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47330- Harris v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that (1) his guilty plea to risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2) was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered in violation of his right to due process because he was not advised that he would be required to register as a sex offender, and (2) his trial counsel, Susan Brown, rendered ineffective assistance in failing to so advise him. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC47136 - Roger B. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, he claims that the court (1) incorrectly applied the law of the case doctrine to conclude that it was bound by this court’s most recent decision in this matter, and (2) improperly denied his habeas petition, which was predicated on the alleged ineffective assistance of his prior habeas counsel and trial counsel. We agree with the petitioner’s second claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC47211 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Melcon ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants Israel Melcon and Antonia Melcon appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their August 21, 2023 postjudgment motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court incorrectly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open the judgment of strict foreclosure on the ground that title already had vested in the plaintiff, thereby rendering the defendants' motion to open moot. We agree with the defendants and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47023 - Housing Authority v. Cyr ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff, the Housing Authority of the town of Manchester, appeals from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Brandon Cyr. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss after concluding that the pretermination notice and notice to quit were invalid and that, therefore, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the summary process action. The defendant disagrees and further contends, for the first time on appeal and as an alternative ground for affirming the judgment of the trial court, that the pretermination notice and notice to quit did not comply with federal notice requirements, and, therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude that the court improperly dismissed this summary process action.")

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

SC21002 - Clue v. Commissioner of Correction ("This certified appeal requires us to determine the scope of a habeas court's authority to open a judgment outside of the four month period set forth in General Statutes § 52-212a.[ The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which concluded that, in the context of a habeas case, the court has the authority to consider an otherwise untimely motion to open that is based on the ineffective assistance of habeas counsel. See Clue v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. App. 803, 820–21, 309 A.3d 1239 (2024). The respondent contends that a habeas court lacks authority to open a judgment outside of the four month statutory deadline under a common-law exception for ineffective assistance of habeas counsel claims. We agree with the respondent. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC21002- Dissent

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