The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 23, for December 5, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 331 - 332)
• Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 222: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 584 - 693)
• Volume 222: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

AC45933 - Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Johnson ("The defendants, Theodore Johnson (Theodore) and Kim Johnson (Kim), appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court following its granting of a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs, Liberty Insurance Corporation (Liberty Insurance), Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) and Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (Safeco). The primary issue in this appeal concerns whether the trial court properly determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiffs do not have a duty to defend the defendants from claims asserted against them in a separate action that stemmed from a motor vehicle accident in which the defendants’ son, Aaron Johnson (Aaron), was driving a motor vehicle owned by Theodore when he lost control of the vehicle and struck a telephone pole, causing serious injuries to a passenger in the vehicle, Jordan Torres. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45662 - Speer v. Brown Jacobson P.C. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Sheri Speer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing, on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel, her quo warranto action challenging the qualifications of the defendants Brown Jacobson P.C. (Brown Jacobson) and one of its attorneys, Aimee Wickless, to serve as corporation counsel for the defendant city of Norwich (city). On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that her claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We agree and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC45675 - Raynor v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that he failed to establish that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during his criminal trial. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erroneously determined that his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance (1) by failing to object to uncharged misconduct evidence, and (2) by failing to limit the scope of cell site location information (CSLI) evidence by either requesting a Porter hearing or presenting a witness to challenge the state’s CSLI expert. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC46491 - Bennett v. Commissioner of Correction (“The self-represented petitioner, Erick Bennett, appeals, following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court denying his motion to open and/or vacate the judgment denying his third amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (motion to open). Although the petitioner challenges the merits of the habeas court’s denial of his motion to open, he has failed to brief the threshold issue of whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)

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

AC45774 - Speer v. Danjon Capital, Inc. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Sheri Speer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her present action against the defendant, Danjon Capital, Inc., as a sanction for abuse of discovery. On appeal, she claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by dismissing this action as a sanction for her alleged discovery abuse, which it found that she had engaged in by insisting repeatedly that she had served the defendant with requests for admissions to which the defendant had failed to respond although the court file and her own records contradicted her claim that requests for admissions had been served; (2) improperly denied her timely motion for reassignment of all matters concerning the amount of attorney's fees she should be ordered to pay the defendant as a sanction for her discovery abuse after the court failed to decide that matter within 120 days of the parties' final court-ordered submission thereon; and (3) erred in denying her motion for summary judgment. We agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly dismissed this action as a sanction for her alleged abuse of discovery and that it improperly denied her motion for reassignment of the pending matter concerning the amount of attorney's fees that should be awarded to the defendant as a sanction for her discovery abuse, which the court failed to decide within 120 days of the last court-ordered submission on that matter. We dismiss that portion of the plaintiff's appeal challenging the purported denial of her motion for summary judgment."

________________________

"As for the plaintiff's third claim, alleging error in the denial of her motion for summary judgment, we lack jurisdiction to decide that claim because the plaintiff's motion was not, in fact, denied, or otherwise finally adjudicated. In addition, we note that the denial of a motion for summary judgment, except in limited circumstances that do not exist here, is not an appealable final judgment over which we would have jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kellogg v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 211 Conn. App. 335, 346–47, 272 A.3d 677 (2022).

The judgment of dismissal, the order requiring the plaintiff to pay attorney's fees to the defendant, and the denial of the plaintiff's motion for reassignment are reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; the portion of the appeal pertaining to the purported denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is dismissed.")

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

SC20771 - State v. Gamer (“We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) ‘Did the Appellate Court err in failing to reverse the trial court’s judgment revoking the defendant’s probation on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant’s failure to pay restitution was wilful?’ And (2) ‘[d]id the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had not abused its discretion in imposing a term of imprisonment for the defendant’s violation of probation rather than some lesser sanction?’ State v. Gamer, 345 Conn. 920, 284 A.3d 984 (2022).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 22, for November 28, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 304 - 331)
• Volume 348: Orders (Pages 920 - 922)
• Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 222: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 466 - 584)
• Volume 222: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 905 - 905)
• Volume 222: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC20740 - State v. Samuel U. (“The defendant, Samuel U., appeals from his conviction of one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). Specifically, he claims that the state infringed on his due process rights by providing a notice of its intent to offer evidence of his other sexual misconduct that was inadequate and did not conform to the evidence elicited at trial. The defendant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion under § 4-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence by admitting the testimony of his daughter, S, concerning sexual misconduct he engaged in with her fourteen years before the charged conduct in the present case. We disagree with both of the defendant’s claims and affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)

• Concurrence

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

AC44732 - River Front Development, LLC v. New Haven Police Dept. ("In this negligence action arising out of a police pursuit, the plaintiffs, River Front Development, LLC, and Ferehteh Bekhrad, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants Officer Michael Criscuolo of the New Haven Police Department and the city of New Haven (city) on the basis of discretionary act immunity. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that qualified immunity barred the defendants from being held liable for the plaintiffs' alleged damages. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the defendants.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44705 - Simpson v. Simpson (“In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the defendant, Robert R. Simpson, appeals and the plaintiff, Janel Simpson, cross appeals from the judgment of the trial court resolving several postjudgment motions of the parties. Specifically, the defendant claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) modified its original decision on the postjudgment motions by way of a postappeal articulation, (2) construed provisions of the parties’ separation agreement regarding child support and alimony, (3) awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff, and (4) rendered an educational support order that failed to comply with General Statutes § 46b-56c. In her cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied her motion seeking a modification of alimony and child support. Because we agree with the defendant’s second claim that the court misinterpreted the parties’ separation agreement regarding additional child support and alimony payments and rendered an improper educational support order, we conclude that it is unnecessary to resolve his first claim regarding the court’s articulation. Furthermore, we conclude that, because the court’s various financial orders and postjudgment rulings are inextricably linked, these errors necessarily also require the reversal of the court’s award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff and its denial of the plaintiff’s motion for modification of alimony and child support. Accordingly, we reverse the court’s remedial orders attendant to its denial of the plaintiff’s motion for contempt as well as its rulings on the plaintiff’s motion for order re college expenses and her motion for modification of alimony and child support. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”)

• Concurrence & Dissent
  
  

AC45657 - Graham v. Graham (“In this postjudgment marital dissolution matter, the defendant, William Graham, appeals, and the plaintiff, Cheryl L. Graham, cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court rendered with respect to two postjudgment motions for contempt filed by the plaintiff. The defendant claims that the court improperly found him in contempt for wilfully violating postjudgment orders pertaining to his obligations to pay alimony to the plaintiff and the medical expenses of the parties’ children. The defendant also challenges the court’s award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in dismissing an offer of compromise that she filed to resolve her claim that the defendant violated the court’s postjudgment order relating to his alimony obligation. We conclude that the court properly declined to award interest pursuant to the plaintiff’s offer of compromise, but the form of the judgment with respect thereto is improper and we remand the case with direction to strike the plaintiff’s offer of compromise. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.”)

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45529 - Reyes v. State (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) improperly determined that his newly discovered third-party culpability evidence would probably not produce a different result in a new trial, and (3) improperly determined that the state did not suppress his newly discovered impeachment evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). We disagree and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 21, for November 21, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 348: Orders (Pages 917 - 920)
• Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 222: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 428 - 466)
• Volume 222: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 905)
• Volume 222: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC46007 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Rose (“Rahman Rose, the proposed intervenor in this action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by his father, the defendant Paul Rose, who died subsequent to the commencement of the foreclosure action, filed this appeal in a self-represented capacity challenging various rulings of the trial court, including its denial of his motion to open the foreclosure judgment to extend the sale date, its granting of the motion of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, as custodian for Tower DBW IV Trust 2014-1, to strike an appearance that Rahman Rose filed to appear on behalf of the estate of Paul Rose, and its denial of his motion to intervene. On appeal, he asserts that, because he is the sole beneficiary of his father's estate, he has a substantial interest in the foreclosure matter and should have been made a party thereto. We dismiss the appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45220 - Schofield v. Rafley, Inc. (“This action sounding in breach of contract and employment discrimination follows a prior action commenced in 2017 between the same parties that involved similar claims (2017 action). See Schofield v. Rafley, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-17-6078256-S (May 14, 2020). The substitute plaintiff, Andrea Sadler, executor of the estate of Lydia Schofield (decedent), now appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Rafley, Inc. (Rafley), Joseph Mason, and Karen Mason. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed the decedent’s employment discrimination count as untimely and (2) granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Rafley on the breach of contract count. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45712 - Soyini v. Commissioner of Correction (“In his petition, he asserted that his underlying conviction is invalid because his constitutional rights not to be subjected to an unreasonable warrantless search of his cell phone, to due process, and to the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel were violated. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel was not violated on the basis of counsel’s failure to move to suppress certain evidence that the police extracted from the petitioner’s cell phone prior to obtaining a valid search warrant and the ‘fruits’ of the purportedly unconstitutional search. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 20, for November 14, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 197 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 171 - 174
• Volume 222: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 307 - 428)
• Volume 222: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Title page for Connecticut Appellate Reports

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

AC45825 - Stanley v. Quiros ("The incarcerated and self-represented plaintiff, Steven K. Stanley, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants, Angel Quiros, James W. Donohue, Joyce Gosselin, and Anthony Corria. On appeal, it appears that the plaintiff is claiming that the defendants violated 28 U.S.C. § 1915 by taking certain funds out of his prisoner trust account to pay for filing fees related to his in forma pauperis filings. Because the plaintiff has failed to adequately brief any cognizable claim of error in relation to the court's dismissal of his action, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Rights,
• Recent Opinions

AC45482 - Stephenson v. Commissioner of Correction ("After the granting of certification to appeal, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Joseph Stephenson. The habeas court found that the petitioner's criminal trial counsel, James Lamontagne, had provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly advise the petitioner about the mandatory deportation consequence of his guilty pleas to two charges of larceny in the sixth degree. On appeal, the respondent claims that the habeas court's determination that Lamontagne had performed deficiently was improper because the court (1) did not determine what advice Lamontagne actually provided, as required by Budziszewski v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 504, 142 A.3d 243 (2016), (2) failed to hold the petitioner to his burden to rebut the presumption that Lamontagne's advice fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, and (3) applied a higher standard than what the law requires when it based its finding of deficient performance on Lamontagne's failure to advise the petitioner that his pleas would "`automatically subject him to mandatory deportation.'" (Emphasis omitted.) We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

• AC45482 Concurrence- Stephenson v. Commissioner of Correction

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

AC45397 - State v. Jeffrey G. ("The defendant, Jeffrey G. (petitioner), appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to General Statutes § 54-102kk. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to establish that a reasonable probability existed that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results obtained through DNA testing had been available at his criminal trial. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC45812 - State v. Martin G. ("The defendant, Martin G., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for modification of his sentence pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-39 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he had failed to establish good cause to modify his sentence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20676 - Barash v. Lembo ("The primary issue in this appeal is whether the trustee of an inter vivos trust that is the residuary beneficiary of the estate of the settlor-decedent has a duty to protect and collect assets that have not yet been transferred to the trust. After providing for the payment of debts and taxes and setting forth a number of specific bequests, the will of the decedent, Richard Ripps, who died in 2006, bequeathed the residue of his estate to an amended and restated revocable trust benefiting his three children, the plaintiffs Jennie R. Ripps, Michael J. Ripps, and Elizabeth J. Ripps (trust beneficiaries).The present action and five other consolidated cases concern the proper administration of that portion of the decedent's residuary estate that has not yet been distributed to the trust. In particular, the undistributed assets consist of a 49 percent interest in certain commercial real estate development projects (residuary assets), including properties owned by Evergreen Walk, LLC (Evergreen Walk), Northern Hills, LLC (Northern Hills), and M/S Town Line Associates, LLC (M/S Town Line Associates) (collectively, commercial assets).

Approximately seventeen years later, the estate has not yet settled. In 2018, the trust beneficiaries and their mother, the plaintiff Susan Shapiro Barash, one of three cotrustees of the Richard Ripps Amended and Restated Revocable Trust Dated February 8, 2008, filed this action in the Superior Court, alleging that the defendant and cotrustee, Barbara Lembo, breached her fiduciary duty as trustee by failing to protect and collect trust property, to investigate or ask questions regarding the alleged misconduct of the executor of the estate, Laurence P. Rubinow, and to seek recovery from and hold Rubinow accountable for any damages sustained by the trust as a result of the alleged misconduct. The plaintiffs sought damages and the removal of the defendant as cotrustee. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, who was the decedent's widow, on the basis of its conclusion that the defendant, as a trustee, had no duty, prior to the distribution of the residuary assets, to take any action against Rubinow with respect to those assets—including investigating, questioning or monitoring Rubinow's administration of the estate, or, as the trial court stated, to "[s]hap[e]" or "gather" the property that has not yet poured over into the trust.

We agree with the plaintiffs that the trial court incorrectly concluded that, as a matter of law, no material issue of fact remained as to whether the defendant owed the trust beneficiaries a duty to collect and protect the prospective trust property in the residuary estate. We also conclude that the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action against the defendant for breach of her fiduciary duty as trustee. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

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