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.
SC20422 - Gonzalez v. O & G Industries, Inc. ("Almost twelve years ago, an explosion occurred at a natural gas fueled, power generating
facility under construction in Middletown. The devastating blast and ensuing fire took the lives of six construction employees and injured nearly thirty more. Several
of the victims and their families brought this tort action
against the owner of the power plant, the owner’s administrative agent, the general contractor, and others. The
plaintiffs claimed that the general contractor’s oversight
during construction caused the tragedy, and that the
owner and administrative agent were liable for that
oversight under theories of strict liability for abnormally
dangerous activities and negligence. After their claims
against the general contractor were resolved in the contractor’s favor, the plaintiffs sought relief from the
defendant owner and administrative agent. The plaintiffs’ two theories of tort liability were bifurcated. With
respect to the plaintiffs’ strict liability claims, the defendants asserted that they were not strictly liable because
the procedure that caused the explosion was not abnormally dangerous. Following an evidentiary hearing, the
trial court agreed and rendered judgment for the defendants with respect to the strict liability claims. Then,
the defendants sought summary judgment with respect
to the plaintiffs’ negligence claims, asserting that they
were not liable in negligence because it was the general
contractor, not the owner or administrative agent,
which exercised control over the procedure that caused
the explosion. The court agreed, granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment with respect to
the negligence claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and we
must decide whether tort remedies are available to the
plaintiffs following this tragic event.
...
We agree with the defendants with respect to the
first issue and conclude that the gas blow procedure
is not an abnormally dangerous activity and that the
plaintiffs cannot maintain a strict liability claim. We
also agree with the defendants with respect to the second issue and conclude that no reasonable jury could
find that the defendants exercised control over the gas
blow procedure. Finally, we decline to review the plaintiffs’ two additional negligence arguments because we
conclude that those arguments are inadequately
briefed."
AC43471 - Housing Authority v. Stevens (Summary process; subject matter jurisdiction, serious nuisance, implicit bias; "In this summary process action, the defendant, Bruce Stevens, appeals from the trial court's judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the Housing Authority of the City of New London. The defendant claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to deliver to the defendant a pretermination, or Kapa, notice prior to commencing its summary process action against him, (2) improperly found that his conduct constituted a serious nuisance within the meaning of General Statutes § 47a-15 (C), and (3) made certain factual findings that are not supported by the evidentiary record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC44313 - Walzer v. Walzer ("In this marital dissolution action, the self-represented defendant, Roy Walzer, appeals from the trial court's postdissolution judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Carol Walzer, finding the defendant in contempt.On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found that his admitted failure to make property settlement payments to the plaintiff in accordance with the dissolution judgment was wilful, and (2) ordered the sale of the former marital home. We affirm the judgment of the court.")
AC44440 - Zakko v. Kasir ("In this domestic relations matter, the defendant, Laith Kasir, appeals from the trial court's order awarding, inter alia, $15,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiff, Angham Zakko.The defendant claims that, in ordering him to pay attorney's fees, the trial court made a clearly erroneous factual finding and abused its discretion.We agree with the defendant and, therefore, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43813 - Lasso v. Valley Tree & Landscaping, LLC ("The plaintiffs, Kleber Gonzalo Loja Lasso, as administrator of the estate of the decedent, Luis Albaro Ortega Ortega (Ortega), and Marcia Del Lourdes Gualan Coronel (Coronel), appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendant O & G Industries, Inc. (O & G), for summary judgment as to counts four and five of the revised complaint, which alleged claims against O & G for the wrongful death of Ortega pursuant to General Statutes § 52-555 and for loss of consortium on behalf of Coronel, who was married to Ortega at the time of his death. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment filed by O & G because (1) issues of material fact existed concerning O & G's responsibility for ensuring safe workplace practices with respect to certain tree removal work performed by the defendant Valley Tree and Landscaping, LLC (Valley Tree), and (2) the court erred in failing to find, pursuant to a construction contract between O & G and the borough of Naugatuck (borough), that O & G owed a duty of care to Valley Tree and, hence, to Ortega. The plaintiffs also claim that the court improperly rendered summary judgment as to Coronel's loss of consortium claim against O & G, which was derivative of the negligence claim against O & G. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC42827 - State v. Rosario (Larceny in second degree, motion for extension of time, restitution, due process; "The defendant, Sigfredo Rosario, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 (1) and 53a-123 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly ordered that he pay restitution without first considering the factors enumerated in General Statutes § 53a-28 (c), (2) abused its discretion in denying his motion for an extension of time within which to begin making restitution payments and (3) violated his due process right to a fair and impartial trial when it questioned him and two of the state's witnesses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Please note: Bridgeport Law Library is closed until further notice.
Wednesday, December 29th
- Danbury Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
- Middletown Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Waterbury Law Library is opening at 9:30 a.m.
Thursday, December 30th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- Middletown Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
See our regularly scheduled hours.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 26, for December 28, 2021 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 340: Connecticut Reports (Pages 425 - 532)
- Volume 340: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 209: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 395 - 550)
- Volume 209: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 905 - 905)
- Volume 209: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
- Notice Publishing Deadlines
SC20482 - Goguen v.
Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner, proceeding as a self-represented party,
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1996 conviction,
pursuant to a guilty plea, of sexual assault in the second degree. The habeas
court declined to issue the writ for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that
the petitioner was not in the custody of the respondent, the Commissioner of
Correction. The petitioner then filed a petition for certification to appeal to
the Appellate Court pursuant to § 52-470 (g), which the habeas court denied.”)
AC36663 - Reid v. Speer (Appeal from Compensation Review Board decision; "On appeal,
the defendant challenges several of the commissioner’s
findings and also claims that filing a form 43 to contest
liability for the plaintiff’s injury would have constituted
a criminal act punishable pursuant to General Statutes
§ 31-290c, due to her alleged knowledge that his claim
was fraudulent. We affirm the decision of the board".)
AC43470 - Lippi v. United Services Automobile Assn. ("The plaintiffs, Kris J. Lippi and Gina M. Lippi, appeal from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, United Services Automobile Association, on the plaintiffs' two count complaint that alleged breach of an insurance policy and extracontractual claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred by improperly granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43249 - Overley v. Overley ("The defendant, Mark S. Overley, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Monica R. Overley. He claims that the court improperly (1) failed to award him a separate property credit for his contribution to the purchase of the marital home prior to distributing that property as a marital asset, (2) contravened the parties' prenuptial agreement governing the tax treatment of alimony payments he was ordered to pay the plaintiff, and (3) denied his request for a continuance to obtain new counsel. We disagree with the defendant's first and third claims but agree, in part, with his second claim. We therefore reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.")
AC42872 - State v. James K. ("The defendant, James K., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). The defendant claims that (1) the trial court violated his right to a fair trial and to be tried before an impartial jury by restricting defense counsel's examination of prospective jurors, (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence a videotaped forensic interview of the victim, (3) the trial court violated his rights to due process, to a fair and impartial trial, and to be convicted by means of a unanimous verdict because the deadlocked jury instructions that it provided to the jury were coercive and misleading, and (4) this court, in the exercise of its supervisory authority over the administration of justice, should require trial courts, when delivering deadlocked jury instructions, to instruct the jury that it need not reach a verdict and that jurors have the right to disagree with respect to the proper verdict. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43986 - Hospital Media Network, LLC v. Henderson ("This matter returns to us following our decision in Hospital Media Network, LLC v. Henderson, 187 Conn. App. 40, 201 A.3d 1059 (2019) (HMN), in which this court reversed the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Hospital Media Network, LLC, and against the self-represented defendant James G. Henderson only as to the award of damages and remanded the case for a new hearing in damages.Id., 60. The defendant now appeals from the judgment rendered on remand awarding damages to the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) exceeded the scope of this court's remand order in HMN and (2) awarded damages that were (a) predicated on factual findings that were not supported by the record and (b) inequitable. We reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court."
AC43295 - Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Mordecai (Claim that trial court 1.) abused its discretion by denying defendants' request to amend answer and special defenses, 2.) improperly grant summary judgment as to liability and 3.) improperly rendered strict foreclosure judgment; "The defendants, Michael A. Mordecai and Elizabeth M. Keyser, appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff Wilmington Savings Fund Society, F.S.B., D/B/A Christiana Trust, not individually but as trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust (Wilmington). The defendants claim that the court (1) abused its discretion by denying their request to amend their special defenses, (2) improperly granted summary judgment as to liability because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether they had defaulted on the note, and (3) misapplied Practice Book § 23-18 (a) in rendering a judgment of strict foreclosure because they had asserted a defense regarding the amount of the debt owed. We agree with the defendants that the court abused its discretion by not allowing them to amend their special defenses and, consequently, also improperly granted the motion for summary judgment as to liability and rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure without due consideration of those defenses. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")
Please note: Bridgeport Law Library is closed until further notice.
Wednesday, December 22nd
- New Britain Law Library closed after 3:15 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed today.
- Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Thursday, December 23rd
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- Hartford Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
Friday, December 24th
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed for the holiday.
See our regularly scheduled hours.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 25, for December 21, 2021 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 340: Connecticut Reports (Pages 266 - 424)
- Volume 340: Orders (Pages 908 - 912)
- Volume 340: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 209: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 327 - 395)
- Volume 209: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 905)
- Volume 209: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Supreme Court Pending Cases
- Notice Publishing Deadlines
AC43912 - Lebanon Historical Society, Inc v. Attorney General (Quiet title, motion to dismiss, standing, subject matter jurisdiction; "In this action to quiet title to, and to impose conservation and preservation restrictions on, property in the town of Lebanon (town), the plaintiff, Lebanon Historical Society, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant First Congregational Church of Lebanon (church), on the ground that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the action. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court erred when it concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a quiet title action on the portion of the Lebanon Town Green (Green), where the church is located (Church Parcel). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43727 - Corbo v. Savluk ("In this negligence action stemming from a motor vehicle collision, the plaintiff, Elisabeth M. Corbo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a jury verdict for the defendant, Christopher J. Savluk. On appeal, she claims that the court improperly (1) permitted the defendant's attorney to question her regarding when she first contacted an attorney and (2) admitted into evidence a letter that indicated that the plaintiff had retained counsel to represent her in connection with the accident. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC41990 - R. A. v. R. A. ("The defendant mother, R. A., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving the parties' marriage and granting the plaintiff father, R. A., sole custody of their minor children. On appeal, the defendant contends that the court (1) improperly included the defendant's child from a previous relationship in the custody order, (2) inequitably set forth procedures for the parties to collaborate on a visitation scheme, and (3) relied on inaccurate information concerning the plaintiff's finances in crafting its child support order. We dismiss as moot the defendant's appeal as to her first claim and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.")
AC43611 - State v. McKinney (Assault of elderly person in second degree; violation of probation; "The defendant, William McKinney, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of assault of an elderly person in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60b (a) (1). The defendant also appeals from the court's judgment finding him in violation of his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. The defendant claims that the court erred in (1) denying his first motion to correct an illegal sentence that he filed and (2) its rulings on several evidentiary objections during trial. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")