The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Property Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3877

AC41966 - Peterson v. Torrington (Declaratory judgment; summary judgment; tax sale; "This appeal arises out of a system to collect and pay property taxes unique to the defendant city of Torrington (city). See 21 Spec. Acts 7, No. 4 (1931). Pursuant to the system, the defendant tax collector, Robert Crovo (tax collector), conducted a tax sale in which he sold the real property of the plaintiff, Alyssa Peterson, to collect unpaid property taxes. In response, Peterson commenced an action against the city, the tax collector, and the purchasers of the property at the sale, the defendants William Gilson and Sharon Gilson (purchasers). Subsequently, Homeowners Finance Company (lender), the first mortgage holder on the plaintiff's property, intervened as a defendant, in an attempt to void the sale of the property. All six parties filed motions for summary judgment. Ultimately, the trial court, after concluding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denied summary judgment as to Peterson and the lender. Peterson and the lender filed separate appeals. We dismiss the lender's appeal." "[1]Peterson's appeal was dismissed after she failed to timely file a brief and appendix. She, therefore, is not a party to this appeal.")

AC42256 - Dickau v. Mingrone (Property; breach of contract; "The plaintiff, Jason Dickau, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant, Lawrence Mingrone, on the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation, relating to the defendant's sale of real property to the plaintiff. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court's findings that (1) the Office of Building Inspection and Enforcement for the City of New Haven (building department) had not made a determination that the number of legal units in the property was less than three, and (2) the plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of damages as to each of his claims were clearly erroneous. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42000 - Jepsen v. Camassar (Declaratory judgment; "The plaintiffs Anders B. Jepsen and Beth Jepsen appeal from the denial of their postjudgment motions for equitable relief, for attorney's fees and costs, and to open the judgment rendered by the trial court following a remand by this court. See Jepsen v. Camassar, 181 Conn. App. 492, 187 A.3d 486 (Jepsen I), cert. denied, 329 Conn. 909, 186 A.3d 12 (2018). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the trial court failed to provide them with relief that was encompassed within the mandate of Jepsen I when it denied their claims to equitable relief and attorney's fees and costs, (2) even assuming that the mandate did not encompass the relief sought by the plaintiffs, the trial court improperly declined to open the judgment to provide the plaintiffs with their desired relief, and (3) the trial court violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights by failing to provide them with their desired relief on remand. We agree in part with the plaintiffs' claim to attorney's fees and costs, reverse the judgment of the trial court limited to that issue and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")

AC41688 - Carabetta Organization, Ltd. v. Meriden ("In this case arising from a dispute that originated more than twenty years ago, the plaintiffs, The Carabetta Organization, Ltd., Summitwood Development, LLC (Summitwood), and Nipmuc Properties, LLC (Nipmuc), appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, the city of Meriden, Dominick Caruso, Tilcon, Inc., and Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. (Tilcon). The plaintiffs claim that the court erred in concluding that their claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Interpleader Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3879

AC41922 - Starboard Resources, Inc. v. Henry ("In this interpleader action, the Imbruce parties appeal from the trial court's interlocutory judgment of interpleader. On appeal, the Imbruce parties claim that the trial court (1) does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this interpleader action because the plaintiff, Starboard Resources, Inc., lacks standing, (2) erroneously denied the defendant Giddings Investments, LLC's motion to dismiss this interpleader action as moot, (3) improperly rendered the interlocutory judgment of interpleader, and (4) erroneously granted a motion to remand the matter to the arbitrator who had entered an award in an arbitration involving the Imbruce parties and the SOSventures parties. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Probate Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3878

AC41545 - Presto v. Presto ("The plaintiff Charles Presto, in his capacity as the executor of the estate of William Presto, and in his individual capacity, appeals from the judgment dismissing his declaratory judgment action against the defendants, Teodozja Presto, Andrzej Mazurek, and Stanislaus Mazurek, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the claims raised were not ripe for adjudication. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3874

AC42026 - Compass Bank v. Dunn ("Practice Book § 13-19 is a rule not often considered by either this court or the Supreme Court. We examine it in this appeal, because the defendants Jeffrey S. Dunn and Diane C. Dunn claim that, despite their counsel's compliance with § 13-19, the trial court erroneously granted the motion for default for failure to disclose a defense filed by the plaintiff, Compass Bank. We agree with the defendants and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41851 - Wachovia Mortgage, FSB v. Toczek ("The defendant Aleksandra Toczek appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not have standing, (2) improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, (3) improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure in violation of Practice Book § 23-18, and (4) abused its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion to reargue the judgment of strict foreclosure. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3875

AC41824 - Turek v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Zoning; "The defendant, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Milford (board), appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal filed by the plaintiffs . . . and reversing the decision of the board that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a variance. On appeal, the board claims that the trial court erroneously sustained the appeal, and causes us to consider (1) whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a legally cognizable hardship, and (2) whether the plaintiffs' proposal qualifies under the exception to the hardship requirement set forth in Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 703, 710, 535 A.2d 799 (1988), and its progeny. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3873

SC20122 - Rutter v. Janis (Negligence; "Subject to certain requirements, General Statutes § 14-60 (a) permits motor vehicle dealers to temporarily loan a dealer license plate to, inter alia, the purchaser of one of their vehicles while that purchaser's registration is pending, but "for not more than thirty days in any year . . . ." The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether, for purposes of calculating that thirty day period, the "first day" is the date on which the dealer loans the plate to the purchaser or the first full calendar day thereafter.

Following a fatal motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs in this joint appeal, Casey Leigh Rutter, Nancy Beale, as administratrix of the estate of Lindsey Beale, and Jason Ferreira, each commenced an action against the defendant Danbury Fair Hyundai, LLC, a motor vehicle dealer whose dealer license plate was displayed on one of the vehicles involved in the accident. The trial court concluded that the accident occurred on the last day of the thirty day limitation period of § 14-60 (a) because the day during which the defendant loaned the plate was not included in the calculation of the thirty day period. The Appellate Court agreed and affirmed the judgments of the trial court; see Rutter v. Janis, 180 Conn. App. 1, 5, 182 A.3d 85 (2018); and we granted certification, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court correctly excluded the date of the loan when calculating the thirty day loan period. See Rutter v. Janis, 329 Conn. 904, 185 A.3d 594 (2018).

We agree with the Appellate Court that the day of the loan does not count toward the thirty day limitation period of § 14-60 (a). In particular, we conclude that the legislature's unqualified use of the term "days"—a term that has a well established legal meaning in our jurisprudence—indicates that it intended the thirty day period to be measured in terms of full calendar days. Therefore, because the day of the loan was a "fraction" of a day rather than a full calendar day, it must be excluded. This construction is consistent with this court's long recognized policy that, when calculating statutory and other deadlines, "the day of the act from which a future time is to be ascertained . . . is to be excluded from the calculation . . . ." Weeks v. Hull, 19 Conn. 376, 382 (1849). This court established, and has consistently adhered to, this rule as a matter of policy in order to ensure uniformity and predictability in the computation of deadlines, and we see no reason why it should not be applied to § 14-60 (a). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")



Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3876

AC41061 - Al-Fikey v. Obaiah ("The defendant, Mohamed Obaiah, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Reem Al-Fikey. The defendant asserts that the trial court improperly (1) found him at fault for the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, (2) found that he was intentionally underemployed when calculating his earning capacity, and (3) determined which properties were part of the marital estate. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42003 - Nietupski v. Del Castillo ("The self-represented plaintiff, Karol Nietupski, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the defendant, Nerida Del Castillo. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) violated the free exercise clause of the first amendment by rendering a judgment of marital dissolution, and (2) improperly entered orders regarding the travel and education of a minor child. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Civil Procedure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3880

AC41145 - Bordiere v. Ciarcia Construction, LLC ("The self-represented defendant Michael Ciarcia appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of Patricia Bordiere, the executrix of the estate of Marcus Bordiere, to open a prior judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Marcus Bordiere, and to substitute herself as the plaintiff for purposes of enforcing the prior judgment by pursuing an after-discovered asset of the defendant. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in relying on General Statutes § 52-107 to grant the executrix' motion to substitute herself as the plaintiff, as there was no case pending at the time she filed her motion to substitute and, thus, no case in which she could participate. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")



Connecticut Law Journal - February 18, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3871

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 34, for February 18, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 334: Connecticut Reports (Pages 636 - 687)
  • Volume 334: Orders (Pages 921 - 923)
  • Volume 334: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 195: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 780 - 870)
  • Volume 195: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3870

SC19899 - State v. Edwards (Murder; conspiracy to commit murder; assault first degree; conspiracy to commit assault first degree; "The defendant, Lamont Edwards, appeals from the trial court's judgment of conviction of various crimes in connection with his involvement in a shooting on a crowded New Haven street in which a fifteen year old boy died and two individuals were seriously injured. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted the out-of-court statements of two witnesses identifying him as the shooter in violation of the hearsay rule and that the admission of one of those two statements, made by a witness who did not testify at trial, also violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. The defendant also claims that the trial court's third-party culpability instruction improperly omitted the names of the potential third-party culprits. As to the admission of the two out-of-court statements, the state responds that this court should decline to review the defendant's challenge to their admission because the defendant failed to preserve his evidentiary challenge and the record is inadequate to review his constitutional challenge. In the alternative, the state contends that the defendant (1) opened the door to that evidence, and (2) even if the admission was improper, this court should nonetheless affirm the trial court's judgment on the basis that any evidentiary error was not harmful and any constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In response to the defendant's challenge to the trial court's third-party culpability instruction, the state argues that the instruction was sufficient because the law does not require that the court include the name or names of the alleged third-party culprits. We affirm the judgment of the trial court")




Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3868

AC41947 - Ruiz v. Commissioner of Correction (Charge of sexual assault in the first degree and fourth degree; risk of injury to child; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated by the performance of his trial counsel in challenging the reliability of the state’s witness at a pretrial hearing on the state’s motion in limine seeking permission to videotape the testimony of the child victim, N, in the petitioner’s absence pursuant to State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061, 108 S. Ct. 1017, 98 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1988). We affirm the judgment of the habeas court”).


Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3864

SC20186 - State v. Turner (Felony murder; robbery first degree; conspiracy to commit robbery first degree; certification from Appellate Court; "In this case, we are asked to determine whether, in light of our recent decision in State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97, 156 A.3d 506 (2017), the defendant, Tyquan Turner, is entitled to review of his unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly failed to sua sponte conduct a hearing pursuant to State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058, 118 S. Ct. 1384, 140 L. Ed. 2d 645 (1998), before admitting expert testimony regarding cell phone data and corresponding cell tower coverage maps. The defendant seeks review under (1) State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), (2) the plain error doctrine; see Practice Book § 60-5; and (3) this court's supervisory authority over the administration of justice. We conclude that, because the defendant has failed to establish that any error occurred, he is not entitled to any review of this unpreserved claim. Accordingly, we affirm the Appellate Court's judgment.")

AC41864 - State v. Bermudez (Felony murder; "The defendant, Noel Bermudez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c. On appeal, the defendant alleges evidentiary error, claiming that the trial court improperly (1) admitted testimony that he was a member of a gang and that a state's witness had to be relocated as a result of inculpating the defendant, and (2) refused to admit into evidence letters written by a state's witness to the defendant while the defendant was incarcerated, prevented the defendant from questioning the state's witness about the termination of her employment, and prevented the defendant from questioning the state's witness about her birth control practices. Additionally, the defendant claims that the prosecutor improperly referred to facts not in evidence during closing argument to the jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42048 - State v. Palmenta (Attempt to commit criminal mischief in third degree; attempt to commit criminal trespass in third degree; subject matter jurisdiction; "The petitioner, Scott R. Palmenta, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis.The question with which we are presented is whether the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition. We conclude that the court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction but that it should have dismissed the petition, rather than deny it. The form of the judgment is improper and, therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand the case with direction to dismiss the petition.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3865

AC42254 - U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Armijo ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants Anthony R. Armijo and Cynthia Armijo appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their postjudgment motion to dismiss. The defendants claim on appeal that the court erred in rejecting their claim that it lacked jurisdiction over this action because the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc., did not have standing to bring it. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3867

AC42021 - Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Rocky Hill (Tax appeal; "In this tax appeal, we are required to determine whether a municipal tax assessor is permitted to utilize the depreciation schedule set forth in General Statutes § 12-63 (b) (6) to assess the personal property of a taxpayer when the municipality has not adopted by ordinance the statutory depreciation schedule as provided in § 12-63 (b) (2). We answer that question in the affirmative. The defendant, the town of Rocky Hill (town), appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal of the plaintiff, Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., from the town's assessment of personal property located at 1899 Silas Deane Highway, Rocky Hill (store). On appeal, the town claims that the court erred in determining that the town's tax assessor (assessor) could not utilize the depreciation schedule set forth in § 12-63 (b) (6) because the town had not adopted the statutory schedule by ordinance, which likely influenced the court's conclusion that the town had overassessed the plaintiff's personal property. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Probate Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3866

AC42198 - Cook v. Purtill ("The plaintiff, Edward Werner Cook, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment dismissing his probate appeal. The plaintiff filed this appeal as the trustee of a charitable trust, The Caprilands Foundation (foundation). Because the plaintiff is not an attorney and has appeared without counsel on behalf of a trust, we conclude that the plaintiff does not have the authority to represent the trust. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")


New Office of Legislative Research Reports

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3862

The Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following reports:

Sexual Assault Statute of Limitations - 2020-R-0007 - Summarize the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases under Connecticut law. This report updates OLR Report 2018-R-0249 to reflect changes from the 2019 legislative session.

Connecticut Sex Crimes Statistics (Convictions 2015-2019) - 2020-R-0023 - Summarize Connecticut sex crimes convictions from 2015–2019, distinguishing crimes where the statute specifically protects minor victims.

Summary of State Gun Laws - 2020-R-0025 - Summarize Connecticut’s gun laws. (This report updates OLR Report 2013-R-0001).

Connecticut's Public Health Quarantine Laws - 2020-R-0068 - Provide an overview of Connecticut’s public health quarantine laws.


Connecticut Law Journal - February 11, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3861

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 33, for February 11, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 334: Connecticut Reports (Pages 601 - 636)
  • Volume 334: Orders (Pages 920 - 921)
  • Volume 334: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 195: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 543 - 779)
  • Volume 195: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 906)
  • Volume 195: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


1 2 3 4