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.
Administrative Appeal Law

Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4981

AC44331 - Idlibi v. State Dental Commission (Administrative appeal; appeal from decision of defendant State Dental Commission, which found that plaintiff failed to meet applicable standard of care; "The self-represented plaintiff, Ammar A. Idlibi, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Connecticut State Dental Commission (commission), finding that the plaintiff had failed to meet the applicable standard of care while treating a three year old patient and ordering disciplinary sanctions with respect to the plaintiff's dental license. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his administrative appeal. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) determined that it was proper for the commission to rely on its own expertise in reaching its conclusion that he had breached the applicable standard of care by failing to obtain adequate informed consent; (2) concluded that the commission properly permitted certain expert testimony from a witness who was not board-certified and, as such, lacked knowledge as to the prevailing standard of care; (3) rejected his challenge to the commission's finding that he breached the standard of care by failing to obtain informed consent to place more than one stainless steel crown in the patient's mouth because (a) he did obtain informed consent and (b) the commission, in finding a deviation from the standard of care, acted in excess of its statutory authority; (4) determined that the evidence in the record supports the commission's finding that he failed to chart caries and decalcifications adequately in violation of the standard of care; (5) left unresolved inconsistences in the commission's decision; and (6) violated his right to fundamental fairness. The commission contends that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff served his administrative appeal on the Department of Public Health (department) rather than on the commission. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiff's appeal.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4971

AC44061 - Middlebury v. Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34 ("The plaintiff, the town of Middlebury (town), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the town's administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant State Board of Labor Relations (labor board). The labor board found that the town violated the Municipal Employee Relations Act (act), General Statutes § 7-467 et seq., by unilaterally changing an established past practice of including extra duty pay in the calculation of pensions for members of the defendant Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34 (union), the union representing the town's police officers. On appeal, the town claims that the labor board improperly (1) concluded that it had jurisdiction over the union's prohibited practice complaint and (2) applied the incorrect standard for evaluating the town's contract defense to the unilateral change complaint. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4946

SC20580 - Stratford Police Dept. v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (Administrative Appeal; Statutory interpretation; Whether trial court improperly interpreted and applied General Statutes § 29-28 (b) (2) (b) to require statutory equivalency test for out-of-state misdemeanor convictions; Whether trial court improperly substituted its judgment for judgment of Board of Firearms Permit Examiners; "General Statutes § 29-28 (b) prohibits the issuance of a permit to carry a pistol or revolver if the applicant has been convicted of a felony or certain enumerated offenses under the Connecticut General Statutes but contains no language prohibiting the issuance of a permit on the basis of out-of-state, nonfelony convictions. See General Statutes § 29-28 (b) (2). The applicant in the present case had been convicted in New York of a misdemeanor crime that, had it been committed in Connecticut, would have been among the enumerated offenses precluding him from obtaining a permit. In this appeal, we must decide whether § 29-28 (b) prohibits the issuance of a permit for a pistol or a revolver to an applicant under these circumstances. In light of the fact that the legislature has previously used explicit language in other Connecticut statutes to incorporate equivalent out-of-state convictions, we conclude that the absence of such language in § 29-28 (b) (2) (B) indicates that the legislature intended only for the enumerated Connecticut offenses to operate as a per se bar to obtaining a state pistol permit.

The defendant Anthony Leo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which reversed the decision of the named defendant, the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, ordering the issuance of a pistol permit to the defendant. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erroneously read § 29-28 (b) (2) (B) to include extraterritorial misdemeanor convictions, in contravention of the statute's clear language and enumeration of specific offenses that constitute a per se bar to obtaining a pistol permit in Connecticut. The defendant also claims that the trial court improperly substituted its own judgment for the board's judgment when it overturned the board's determination that the defendant was of suitable character to obtain a pistol permit. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4888

SC20595 - High Ridge Real Estate Owner, LLC v. Board of Representatives ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the defendant, the Board of Representatives of the City of Stamford (board of representatives), properly considered a protest petition that opposed zoning amendments approved by the Zoning Board of the City of Stamford (zoning board). The plaintiff, High Ridge Real Estate Owner, LLC, filed an application with the zoning board to amend the zoning regulations of the city of Stamford (city). The zoning board approved the zoning amendment. Thereafter, local property owners filed a protest petition pursuant to § C6-40-9 of the Stamford Charter (charter), which opposed the amendment. The board of representatives determined that the protest petition was valid and, thereafter, considered and rejected the amendment. The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the board of representatives to the trial court, claiming that the board of representatives did not have the authority to consider whether the protest petition was valid, and asserting that the petition was not valid because it did not contain the signatures of 'at least [300] landowners' anywhere in the city, as required by § C6-40-9. The trial court sustained the plaintiff's appeal. Although we conclude that the board of representatives did not have the authority to determine the validity of the protest petition, we conclude that it was a valid petition because it contained the requisite number of signatures. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff's appeal and remand the case to that court to determine whether the board of representatives properly rejected the amendment.")

  • SC20595 Concurrence - High Ridge Real Estate Owner, LLC v. Board of Representatives

SC20578 - Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the defendant, the Board of Representatives of the City of Stamford (board of representatives), had the authority to approve a protest petition that objected to master plan amendments approved by the Planning Board of the City of Stamford (planning board). The plaintiffs, The Strand/BRC Group, LLC, 5-9 Woodland, LLC, Woodland Pacific, LLC, and Walter Wheeler Drive SPE, LLC, filed an application with the planning board to amend the master plan of the city of Stamford (city). Shortly afterward, the planning board filed its own application to amend the city's master plan. After the planning board approved both applications with some modifications, local property owners filed a protest petition under § C6-30-7 of the Stamford Charter (charter). The board of representatives determined that the protest petition was valid and rejected the planning board's approval of the amendments. The plaintiffs appealed from the decision of the board of representatives to the trial court, which sustained the plaintiffs' appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

  • SC20578 Dissent - Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives

AC43209 - Newtown v. Gaydosh ("The defendants, Gary Gaydosh, Barbara Gaydosh, and Justin Gaydosh, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for contempt filed by the plaintiffs, the town of Newtown (town) and its zoning enforcement officer, Gary Frenette, for the defendants' alleged violation of a stipulated judgment entered into by the plaintiffs and the defendants and rendered by the court to remedy zoning violations on the defendants' property. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the court's finding that they had violated the terms of the judgment was not supported by the evidence and (2) the court abused its discretion with respect to the sanctions imposed as a result of its finding of contempt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4890

AC43891 - Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada ("This appeal arises out of an alleged whistleblower retaliation action filed by the defendant Juanita Estrada in which a human rights referee (referee) from the Office of Public Hearings (office of public hearings) of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission) concluded that Estrada made a protected whistleblower disclosure pursuant to General Statutes § 4-61dd. Thereafter, the Superior Court sustained the appeal of the plaintiff, the Department of Public Health (department), concluding that Estrada’s disclosure to her supervisor was not a whistleblower disclosure under § 4-61dd, that Estrada failed to establish a causal connection between any alleged whistleblower disclosure and the complained of personnel actions, and that the commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s complaint because she had brought the same adverse personnel actions at issue through the grievance procedures in her collective bargaining agreement. On appeal, the commission claims that the court erred (1) in concluding that the commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s complaint, (2) in concluding that Estrada did not make a protected whistleblower disclosure pursuant to § 4-61dd, (3) in concluding that Estrada failed to establish a causal connection between the alleged disclosure and the adverse personnel actions, and (4) by failing to apply the proper standard of review in its analysis of the administrative decision. We agree with the commission that the court improperly determined that the commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s whistleblower retaliation complaint. We determine, however, that the court properly concluded that Estrada did not make a protected whistleblower disclosure pursuant to § 4-61dd and that the court applied the proper standard of review in making this determination. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4863

AC43519 - O'Rourke v. Dept. of Labor (Administrative appeal; labor law; "In this administrative appeal, the plaintiff, Joan O'Rourke, appeals from the decision of the Superior Court, affirming the dismissal of her hybrid action against the defendant AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Council 4, Local 2663 (union) and the defendant Department of Children and Families (department) by the Department of Labor, State Board of Labor Relations (board), a codefendant in this case. Following the termination of the plaintiff's employment with the department, the union filed a grievance on her behalf and represented her in an arbitration proceeding. After the arbitrator determined that the department had just cause to terminate the plaintiff's employment, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the board and, ultimately, appealed the decision of the board to the Superior Court. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Superior Court improperly determined that substantial evidence supported the findings of the board and that the board reasonably concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the union breached its duty of fair representation. The plaintiff specifically contends that the union breached its duty of fair representation because it failed to make two particular legal arguments to the arbitrator. We affirm the decision of the Superior Court.")


Administrative Appeal Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4853

SC20560 - 1st Alliance Lending, LLC v. Dept. of Banking (Administrative appeal; Mortgage lender license revocation; whether defendant had statutory discretion to suspend plaintiff's license and, if so, whether defendant actually and lawfully exercised that discretion; whether defendant was estopped from suspending plaintiff's license; "This appeal requires us to consider, for the first time, the statutory scheme governing the suspension and revocation of a mortgage lender's license. The plaintiff, 1st Alliance Lending, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from the decision of the defendant Jorge Perez, the commissioner of banking, revoking the plaintiff's license to serve as a mortgage lender in the state. The principal issue on appeal is whether General Statutes § 36a-492 and the relevant statutory scheme granted the commissioner the legal authority to suspend and revoke the plaintiff's mortgage lender license. We conclude that they did and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4838

AC44266 - Shelton v. State Board of Labor Relations ("The defendant State Board of Labor Relations (board) appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining the appeal of the plaintiff, the city of Shelton, from the decision of the board in favor of the defendant Shelton Police Union, Inc. (union). On appeal, the board claims that the court improperly concluded that the board's decision was erroneous as a matter of law and predicated on factual findings that were not supported by the record. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinions

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4833

AC44189 - Glanz v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ("The plaintiff, Adam Glanz, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (commissioner), dismissing his appeal from the decision of the commissioner suspending his motor vehicle operator's license for forty-five days, pursuant to General Statutes § 14-227b, and requiring ignition interlock devices in his motor vehicles for six months. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the presumption in § 14-227b (g) that the results of blood alcohol tests commenced within two hours of operation shall be sufficient to indicate blood alcohol content at the time of operation violates his right to due process under the federal constitution because it does not include an exception requiring the submission of additional evidence to prove the accuracy of the blood alcohol test results in the event that such test results reveal that the operator's blood alcohol level was rising, and (2) the court erred in concluding that the rising blood alcohol exception in the criminal statute for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, General Statutes § 14-227a (b), did not apply to his administrative license suspension hearing. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

AC43317 - Lucky 13 Industries, LLC v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ("This administrative appeal arises from a complaint filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles (department), alleging that the plaintiff, Lucky 13 Industries, LLC, doing business as Midnight Auto, charged an illegal "gate fee" for the release of a vehicle following a nonconsensual tow to its place of business. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (commissioner), concluding that the plaintiff had charged an unlawful gate fee and ordering the plaintiff to make restitution to the complainant, Amica Insurance Company (Amica), and to pay a civil penalty to the department. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that federal law preempts state regulation of gate fees charged pursuant to a voluntary agreement.The plaintiff additionally claims that the trial court improperly concluded that (1) the tow at issue was nonconsensual notwithstanding that the plaintiff and Amica's subcontractor executed a contract providing that the plaintiff would perform an "expedited service" when retrieving the vehicle for release and (2) the contract was void as against public policy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4829

SC20532 - Crandle v. Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission (Administrative appeal; whether determination by State Employees Retirement Commission concerning date on which disability retirement benefits become payable was proper; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the State Employees Retirement Act (act), General Statutes § 5-152 et seq., requires the state to commence payment of state employee disability retirement benefits on the day after the employee's last day of paid employment or, instead, the act permits the payment of such benefits to start on the first day of the month after receipt of the employee disability retirement application. The plaintiffs, Catherine Crandle and Ronald Robinson, who are former state employees, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their administrative appeal from the declaratory ruling of the defendant, the Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission (commission). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly upheld the commission's declaratory ruling that, under various provisions of the act, disability retirement benefit payments commence on the first day of the month following receipt by the Retirement Services Division (division) of the employee's application for such benefits. The plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly (1) deferred to the commission's interpretation of the act because that interpretation is neither reasonable nor time-tested, and (2) failed to consider that the commission, as a fiduciary of members of the State Employees Retirement System (SERS), had the burden of proving fair dealing by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree with these claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4823

AC43834 - Nutmeg State Crematorium, LLC v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection (Administrative appeal; "The plaintiffs, Luke DiMaria and Nutmeg State Crematorium, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their administrative appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (commissioner), denying the plaintiffs' applications for two new source review air permits (air permits), which had been submitted by the plaintiffs to the defendant Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (department). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred by (1) concluding that the plaintiffs' cremation system exceeded the maximum allowable stack concentration (MASC) for mercury, (2) interpreting improperly the term "ambient air" to mean all atmosphere external to buildings, (3) adjudicating issues not raised in the administrative appeal, and (4) violating binding legal precedent and General Statutes § 4-183 (j). We affirm the judgment of the court dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal.")


Administrative Appeal Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4818

SC20538 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLC (Sex Discrimination; Whether Women Only Workout Area in Gym Amounted to Sex Discrimination Prohibited by General Statutes § 46a-64; Whether Trial Court Properly Found Activity Exempt. "This appeal presents a significant question of first impression with respect to whether the Public Accommodation Act, General Statutes § 46a-64, contains an implied customer gender privacy exception to its general prohibition against sex based discrimination. The plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal from the decision of the commission's human rights referee (referee), who found that the defendants Edge Fitness, LLC (Edge Fitness) and Club Camel, Inc., Bloomfield, doing business as Club Fitness (Club Fitness), did not engage in discriminatory public accommodations practices. On appeal, the commission claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that women's only workout areas in otherwise public gyms did not violate § 46a-64 because that statute contains an implied customer gender privacy exception. We conclude that the exceptions to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodations are limited to those expressly provided by the plain language of § 46a-64 and, therefore, that there is no implied customer gender privacy exception to the statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4808

AC44255 - Avon v. Freedom of Information Commission (Administrative appeal; subject matter jurisdiction; "The self-represented defendant, Joao Godoy, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which he claims sustained in part the administrative appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the town of Avon (town), the Avon Police Department (department), and the Avon Police Chief, from the final decision of the defendant Freedom of Information Commission (commission). The commission found that the plaintiffs violated the Freedom of Information Act (act), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq., by requiring Godoy to sign an acknowledgment form before releasing copies of the public records he had requested and ordered that the plaintiffs shall not require the signing of such a form as a condition precedent to the inspection or receipt of copies of public records. The court affirmed the commission's decision as to the provision of copies but reversed the commission's order "to the extent that" it applied to the inspection of original public records. We conclude that, because the only public records sought by Godoy in the present case were copies, the court's statements regarding original public records are merely dicta, and, consequently, Godoy is not aggrieved by the judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.")

AC43314 - Kiyak v. Dept. of Agriculture (Appeal of animal control officer's disposal orders pursuant to statute (§ 22-358); claim that § 22-358 (c) was unconstitutionally vague as applied because it permitted animal control officers to issue disposal orders as they deem necessary, thereby authorizing arbitrary enforcement; "The plaintiff, Michael Kiyak, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his administrative appeal from the final decision of the defendant Department of Agriculture (department) to uphold two disposal orders issued by an animal control officer for the defendant town of Fairfield (town) to euthanize the plaintiff's German shepherd dog pursuant to General Statutes § 22-358. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in dismissing his appeal because (1) § 22-358 (c) is unconstitutionally vague as applied in that the word "necessary," concerning the issuance of a disposal order, authorizes arbitrary enforcement of the statute, (2) the department's hearing officer violated the plaintiff's right to procedural due process by using inadequate procedures in upholding the disposal orders, and (3) the hearing officer erred in designating Animal Control Officer Paul Miller as an expert. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiff's appeal.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4797

AC44191 - Marshall v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (Administrative appeal; suspension of motor vehicle operator's license by defendant Commissioner of Motor Vehicles pursuant to statute (§ 14-227b); "The plaintiff, Anthony J. Marshall III, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (commissioner), dismissing his appeal from the decision of the commissioner to suspend his motor vehicle operator's license, pursuant to General Statutes § 14-227b, for forty-five days and requiring an ignition interlock device in his motor vehicles for six months. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that the hearing officer did not abuse her discretion in admitting into evidence a report, which consisted of an A-44 form, a narrative police report and the results of the plaintiff's breath analysis tests, that did not comply with the three day mailing requirement in § 14-227b (c). We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4790

AC44130 - Parker v.Zoning Commission ("The plaintiffs, Robert L. Parker, Peter E. Rogness, and Randi M. Solomon, trustee for the Randi M. Solomon Revocable Trust, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court denying their appeal from the decision of the defendant Zoning Commission of the Town of Washington (commission) to grant the application of the defendant 101 Wykeham Road, LLC (applicant), to modify a special permit previously approved by the commission in 2013 pursuant to a settlement agreement. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that the application did not constitute an impermissible expansion of both a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use. The plaintiffs further claim that the court 'failed to require compliance with [the] special permit standards' contained in the Washington Zoning Regulations (regulations). We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")



Law Library Hours December 17th - December 24th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4754

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.


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4746

AC44281 - Grzeszczyk v. Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission (Administrative appeal; whether trial court properly determined that record was sufficient to support declaratory ruling of defendant Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission denying plaintiff's application for request of refund of certain retirement contributions; "The plaintiff, Marianna Grzeszczyk, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her administrative appeal from the declaratory ruling issued by the defendant, the Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission (commission), denying the plaintiff's request for a refund of the retirement contributions made by her nephew, Edward Panus (Edward). The plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that Edward designated his brother, John Panus (John), as the beneficiary who was entitled to receive a refund of Edward's retirement contributions. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4723

AC43420 - Hartford v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (Employment discrimination; whether trial court properly upheld decision of defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities that employee had proven intentional discrimination based on ancestry by plaintiff employer; "The plaintiff, City of Hartford Police Department (city), appeals from the judgment of the trial court affirming a decision of the named defendant, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), which concluded that the city had discriminated against the defendant Khoa Phan on the basis of his Asian and Vietnamese ancestry by terminating Phan's employment as a probationary police officer. The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court improperly concluded that substantial evidence supported the commission's determination that the city intentionally had discriminated against Phan. We conclude that the substantial evidence in the record does not support a determination of intentional discrimination by the city and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4696

AC44025 - Benjamin F. et al. v. Dept. of Developmental Services (Administrative appeal; claim that defendant Commissioner of Developmental Services violated applicable statute (§ 1-1g) by considering multiple IQ test scores of applicant when determining applicant's eligibility for services from defendant Department of Developmental Services; "The plaintiffs, Benjamin F. and his mother and guardian Denise F., appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant Commissioner (commissioner) of Developmental Services, concluding that Benjamin is not eligible for services from the defendant Department of Developmental Services (department). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the final decision of the commissioner violates the plain language of General Statutes § 1-1g, on the basis that the amended version of the statute no longer permits the commissioner to consider more than one intelligence test where the applicant has presented a full-scale intelligence quotient (IQ) score below seventy, (2) alternatively, that if the statute permits consideration of more than one test, the commissioner is required to consider all full-scale IQ scores, (3) the Superior Court erred in refusing to take judicial notice of certain Probate Court records, (4) the Superior Court erred in declining to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel, and (5) the final decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4698

AC44090 - Savin Gasoline Properties, LLC v. Commission on the City Plan (Zoning; administrative appeal; motion for vacatur; "Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that the appeal is moot and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. Furthermore, because we conclude that this appeal became moot through no fault of Savin; see State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478, 489, 949 A.2d 460 (2008); In re Jessica M., 250 Conn. 747, 749, 738 A.2d 1087 (1999); we grant Savin's motion for vacatur and vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand with direction to the trial court to order the commission to vacate the special permit, corresponding site plan and § 14-321 approvals.")