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.
Recent Opinions

Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4190

AC42515 - Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner contends that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal because he properly had established in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus that his constitutional right to the effective assistance of trial counsel had been violated during his criminal trial when a jury found him guilty of assault in the first degree with a firearm and assault of a peace officer with a firearm. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal".)


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4192

AC42074 - American Tax Funding, LLC v. Design Land Developers of Newtown, Inc. (Municipal tax collection; "The defendant estate of Francis D. D'Addario (estate) appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Reoco, LLC (Reoco). On appeal, the estate claims, inter alia, that the court improperly granted Reoco's motion for judgment on default with respect to two counts of the amended complaint, which sought an in personam money judgment against the estate for the 2005 and 2006 taxes due on the subject property. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal and vacate the judgment of the trial court as against the estate.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4191

AC42747 - Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Gabriel (Summary process; return of service; whether trial court properly denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; "In this summary process action, the defendants . . . appeal from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, as well as from the court's denials of their postjudgment motions to open and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the defendants limit their challenge to the court's denial of their motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. . .

In the present case, there was no genuine dispute as to any jurisdictional fact necessary to find that the defendants had been served with the notice to quit. The record before the court revealed that all defendants had been served. First, the marshal's return of service was prima facie evidence that each defendant had been served, at a minimum, by abode service.See Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 390, 132 A.2d 573 (1957) ('[t]he return is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein'). Second, as a result of the entry of default against the defendants for their failure to plead, all material facts in the complaint were deemed admitted. See Catalina v. Nicolelli, 90 Conn. App. 219, 221, 876 A.2d 588 (2005). Such allegations included the following: 'On January 21, 2019, the plaintiff caused a notice to be duly served on the defendants to quit possession of the premises on or before January 30, 2019, as required by law. The original notice to quit is attached hereto and marked [as] exhibit A.' As the trial court correctly observed, the affidavit of Stephen Gabriel, which was the only evidence that the defendants submitted in support of their motion to dismiss, did nothing to create a genuine dispute as to any pertinent jurisdictional fact. The affidavit merely acknowledges that Stephen Gabriel was in fact served and makes no statement based on any personal knowledge that the other defendants were not served. The averment in the affidavit stating that Stephen Gabriel received only one copy has little, if any, probative value, as only one copy of the notice to quit was necessary to effect service on him, and there was no representation made in the marshal's return of service that seven copies were left with Stephen Gabriel. Finally, and perhaps most notably, there was no affidavit or other documentation from any defendant to demonstrate that he or she had not been served in any manner. In light of the foregoing, the court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss. Because there was ample evidence to support the court's finding that the defendants were served with the notice to quit, the court properly denied the motion to dismiss.

The judgment is affirmed.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4189

AC41869 - State v. Pjura (Assault in second degree; larceny in sixth degree; "The defendant, John Pjura, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (1) and one count of larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125b. The defendant claims on appeal (1) that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim, and (2) that he was denied his right to a fair trial because the prosecutor committed improprieties during the trial by (a) attempting to place evidence of the defendant's postarrest silence before the jury, (b) arguing facts not in evidence, and (c) arguing to the jury that, in order to find the defendant not guilty, it would have to find that two eyewitnesses and the victim were lying. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42703 - State v. Anderson (Assault in first degree with firearm; assault of peace officer with firearm; self-defense; "The defendant, Lonnie Anderson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree by means of the discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5) and of assault of a peace officer by means of the discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c (a) (1); his sentence was enhanced pursuant to General Statutes § 53-202k. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly declined to instruct the jury on self-defense. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4193

AC42389 - Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.); foreclosure; whether plaintiff failed to adequately brief claim regarding foreclosure judgment; "The plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., after a jury trial on the plaintiff's complaint and a court trial on the defendant's counterclaim. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) granted the defendant’s March 15, 2017 motion in limine precluding evidence regarding a 2008 modification agreement (March 15 motion in limine), (2) granted the defendant’s March 16, 2017 motion in limine precluding evidence regarding government regulatory action taken against the defendant (March 16 motion in limine), and (3) denied the plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint.We dismiss the plaintiff’s first claim as moot because the plaintiff has not challenged both of the trial court’s bases for its evidentiary ruling.With regard to the plaintiff’s remaining claims, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4188

SC20425 - Cole v. City of New Haven ("This appeal requires us to consider the limits of our recent decision in Borelli v. Renaldi, ___ Conn. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2020), with respect to whether applicable state and municipal policies render a police officer's acts during a pursuit of a motorist ministerial, rather than discretionary, for purposes of governmental immunity. The plaintiff, Amaadi Cole, brought this negligence action against the defendants, the city of New Haven (city) and one of its police officers, Nikki Curry, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained when Curry pulled her police cruiser directly into an oncoming traffic lane in which the plaintiff was traveling on his dirt bike, causing him to swerve and strike a tree. The plaintiff appeals from the granting of summary judgment by the trial court in favor of the defendants on the ground that they were entitled to governmental immunity for discretionary acts pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (2) (B). On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the trial court incorrectly determined that Curry's decision to drive her cruiser into the oncoming traffic lane was a discretionary act because her actions violated several policies that imposed ministerial duties regarding roadblocks, the operation of police vehicles, and pursuits. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4186

SC20278 - State v. Best ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence four photographs that depicted the bloody interior of a motor vehicle used to transport to the hospital two victims who were shot by the defendant, Durante D. Best. The defendant claims that the photographs were irrelevant to the criminal charges against him and that, even if relevant, their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial effect on the jury. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs and affirm the judgment of conviction.")


Connecticut Law Journal - October 13, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4184

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 15, for October 13, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 226 - 299)
  • Volume 335: Orders (Pages 948 - 952)
  • Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 200: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 720 - 802)
  • Volume 200: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Tort Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4183

SC20325 - Harvey v. Dept. of Correction ("The nub of the question before us is whether the limitations period for a claim against the state brought by the representative of a decedent is controlled by General Statutes § 52-555 (a) regarding wrongful death claims, General Statutes § 4-160 regarding actions authorized by the Claims Commissioner, or both. The plaintiff, Sandra Harvey, administratrix of the estate of Isaiah Boucher, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the action against the defendants, the Department of Correction and the University of Connecticut Health Center Correctional Managed Health Care, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff argues that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that her action was time barred by § 4-160 (d). She argues that, instead, § 52-555 (a) provides the controlling statute of limitations. We conclude that a plaintiff in the unusual posture of the one here, who brings a wrongful death action against the state after having previously obtained permission to sue for medical negligence from the Claims Commissioner, must comply with both the two year time limitation for a wrongful death action articulated in § 52-555 (a) and the one year time limitation on the Claims Commissioner's authorization to sue articulated in § 4-160 (d). Because the plaintiff only complied with the statute of limitations contained in § 52-555 (a) and not with the limitation period articulated in § 4-160 (d), we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4181

AC42545 - Silver Hill Hospital, Inc. v. Kessler ("The defendant, Dawn Kessler, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a trial before an attorney fact finder, in favor of the plaintiff, Silver Hill Hospital, Inc., on the plaintiff’s complaint in the amount of $17,087.15. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the fact finder's conclusions were not based on evidence presented at trial, (2) the fact finder failed to consider the issue of whether the plaintiff was responsible for resolving a coverage dispute issue with Medicare, (3) the court improperly denied her objections to the fact finder's report, and (4) General Statutes § 19a-673d operates as a statutory bar to the plaintiff's debt collection action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4180

AC42950 - Ross v. Ross ("The defendant, Benjamin Ross, appeals from the judgment of the trial court issuing postdissolution financial orders, as well as awarding attorney's fees and costs in favor of the plaintiff, Lauri Ross. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by failing to apply the child support guidelines, (2) erred by modifying the unallocated alimony and child support order without first unbundling the child support portion from the original order, and (3) abused its discretion by ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42299 - Casiraghi v. Casiraghi ("The plaintiff, Christopher Casiraghi, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered on three postdissolution motions for contempt filed by the defendant, Paula Casiraghi. Specifically, the court granted two of the motions for contempt, concluding that the plaintiff wilfully had failed to pay in full his unallocated alimony and child support obligation to the defendant or to make required installment payments toward the satisfaction of a lump sum property distribution award. The court denied a third motion for contempt that alleged that the plaintiff wilfully violated the parties' separation agreement (agreement), which was incorporated into the dissolution judgment, by making a postdissolution investment in a CrossFit franchise, but nonetheless made a finding that the investment had breached the parties' agreement.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) determined that he wilfully had failed to comply with his financial obligations to the defendant despite a lack of any finding by the court regarding his assertion that he lacked the ability to pay, and (2) found that his investment in the CrossFit franchise breached the parties' agreement despite also finding that he was current on his financial obligations to the defendant at the time that the investment was made, which, according to the express terms of the agreement, rendered the investment permissible. For the reasons that follow, we agree that the court improperly granted the defendant's motions for contempt regarding the unallocated support orders and the installment payments on the lump sum property award because the court failed to consider and to determine whether the plaintiff had the ability to pay. We further agree that the court's finding that the plaintiff breached the agreement by investing in the CrossFit franchise was clearly erroneous. We accordingly reverse those aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the court's remedial orders, and remand for further proceedings on the improperly granted motions for contempt. We otherwise affirm the judgment of the court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4179

AC42869 - Autry v. Hosey ("The defendants, Brendan Hosey and the city of New Haven, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered, following a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, La Tanya Autry. The plaintiff brought the underlying negligence action against the defendants seeking compensation for damages that she sustained when she was struck by Hosey's police cruiser while she was a pedestrian crossing a city street. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court, in its order, improperly calculated noneconomic damages for emotional trauma because the court lacked the necessary evidence to find that pedestrians suffer greater emotional trauma when struck by a vehicle than occupants of a vehicle. We agree with the defendants and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the court and remand the matter for a new hearing in damages.")

AC42765 - Costanzo v. Plainfield ("This case arises out of the tragic drowning of a young child in an aboveground swimming pool.The defendants, the town of Plainfield (town), Robert Kerr and D. Kyle Collins, Jr., appeal from the trial court's orders sustaining the objections of the plaintiff Malisa Costanzo, as administratrix of the estate of the decedent, Isabella R. Costanzo, to the defendants' efforts to commence apportionment actions against the owners of the property where the pool was located and their former tenants who had the pool constructed.We agree with the defendants that the court improperly sustained the plaintiff's objections, and therefore we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")


Employment Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4177

SC20274 - Rodriguez v. Kaiaffa, LLC ("This public interest appeal requires us to consider the extent to which a trial court should consider the merits of a party's legal theory before certifying a class action pursuant to Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8. The defendants, Kaiaffa, LLC, and George Chatzopoulos, appeal from the order of the trial court certifying a class action of servers employed by Chip's Family Restaurant (Chip's). The plaintiff, Jacqueline Rodriguez, alleged in her class action complaint that the defendants had violated Connecticut wage laws; see General Statutes § 31-58 et seq.; and regulations by improperly deducting a tip credit from her earnings and paying her and other class members below the minimum wage for the performance of 'nonservice' tasks in connection with their duties as servers. The defendants claim that, in certifying the class, the trial court improperly assumed the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim when it failed to determine if she relied on an incorrect interpretation of one of the regulations implementing Connecticut wage laws. See Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-62-E4. The defendants also contend, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff met the various class certification requirements of Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the trial court's order granting class certification.")


Connecticut Law Journal - October 6, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4176

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 14, for October 6, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 334 Conn. Replacement Pages 915 - 916
  • Volume 335: Orders (Pages 944 - 948)
  • Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 200: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 554 - 719)
  • Volume 200: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
  • Volume 200: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4172

AC41886 - Schuler v. Commissioner of Correction (Appeal from the denial of petition for a writ of habeas corpus, conviction of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a)(3). “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We dismiss the appeal.”)


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4171

AC42647 - Larmel v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co. ("The plaintiff, Phyllis Larmel, commenced the present personal injury action (second action) against the defendant, Metro North Commuter Railroad Company (Metro North), pursuant to the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592 (a). Metro North responded by filing a motion to dismiss the second action on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court, S. Richards, J., dismissed the second action. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed the second action, (2) held that the doctrine of res judicata applies to an arbitrator's decision rendered pursuant to 'informal compulsory arbitration' under General Statutes § 52-549u, (3) failed to hold that a judgment rendered pursuant to General Statutes § 52-549z is a matter of form, (4) failed to hold that the second action was viable pursuant to § 52-592 (a), and (5) failed to hold that the plaintiff's failure to file a demand for a trial de novo constituted mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The defendant claims that the second action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata or, in the alternative, that § 52-592 (a) does not save the second action. We conclude that the accidental failure of suit statute does not save the second action. The form of the judgment is improper. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand the case with direction to render judgment in favor of Metro North.")

AC42259 - Goody v. Bedard ("The plaintiff, Robert Goody, administrator of the estate of Richard Goody (decedent), appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Flori Schmoegner. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by (1) effectively denying his motion for an extension of time to conduct additional discovery when it rendered summary judgment, and (2) determining that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the decedent in rendering summary judgment. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4169

AC42751 - Dempsey v. Cappuccino ("The plaintiff, Shauna Dempsey, appeals from the February 21, 2019 judgment of the trial court awarding the defendant, Vincent Cappuccino, unsupervised visitation rights with their minor child. On appeal, she claims that the court erred by allowing the defendant unsupervised visits without requiring any testing for marijuana use, finding that the defendant does not have a substance abuse problem, and denying her motion for reargument and reconsideration. On February 20, 2020, the court issued subsequent orders that superseded the visitation orders that are challenged on appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot.")

AC41216 - Marshall v. Marshall ("The defendant, Kimberly L. Marshall, appeals from the rulings of the trial court on her motion for contempt and the motion of the plaintiff, William Marshall, Jr., to modify his alimony obligation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) exceeded the scope of this court's remand orders in her prior appeal, (2) failed to abide by the law of the case as established in the decisions of both the trial court and this court in her prior appeal, (3) allowed the plaintiff to claim that his alimony obligation should be determined using reasonable compensation when he had not made that argument at any time prior to the hearing on remand, (4) used reasonable compensation as a basis for calculating the plaintiff's alimony obligation when the parties' separation agreement (agreement) did not provide for that method, and (5) retroactively modified the plaintiff's alimony obligation for a period of nearly four years prior to the plaintiff's motion to modify. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4168

AC42423 - State v. Robert B. ("The defendant, Robert B., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 and breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial when a witness repeatedly testified about the defendant's prior bad acts and arrests, (2) the court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of unlawful restraint in the second degree, and (3) he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial impropriety because one of the two prosecutors who represented the state objected during the defendant's cross-examination of a witness despite not having conducted the direct examination of that witness. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41755 - State v. Freddy T. ("The defendant, Freddy T., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to a jury, of two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1) and (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly admitted portions of a recording of a forensic interview of the child under the medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule that were harmful to him, (2) his convictions under both § 53-21 (a) (1) and (2) constitute double jeopardy, and (3) the court abused its discretion by declining to order disclosure of certain of the child's records following its in camera review of them. We agree that the court improperly admitted portions of the forensic interview of the child that constituted harm. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4170

AC41229 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pototschnig ("The defendant Hubert Pototschnig appeals from the judgment of foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, for HSI Asset Securitization Corporation 2005-NC2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-NC2 (HSI).On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly determined that the plaintiff had standing to bring the foreclosure action, (2) failed to follow the decision of an out of state court, (3) failed to consider whether the securitized trust, HSI, ever received the note and mortgage, and (4) abused its discretion in several of its evidentiary rulings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4167

SC20397 - Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi ("The issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court properly rejected the defendants' claim that the doctrine of equitable nonforfeiture should have operated to prevent their eviction in a summary process action for nonpayment of rent under the terms of a commercial lease. The defendants, Nader Daghoghi (Nader), Sassoon Daghoghi (Sassoon), and 940 Post Road East, LLC, doing business as Savoy Rug Gallery, appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Dominick Boccanfuso (Dominick), Crescienzo Boccanfuso, and Boccanfuso Bros., Inc. (plaintiff corporation). The defendants claim that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying the defendants equitable relief from forfeiture of their tenancy. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court. ")