SC21055, SC21068 - In re Jewelyette M. ("These appeals concern the legal rights of foster parents to participate, as intervenors or otherwise, in neglect proceedings with respect to the best interest of any child who either is currently living with the foster parents or has been in the foster parents’ care within the year prior to the initiation of any such proceeding. The primary issue before us is whether General Statutes § 46b-129 (p) prohibits foster parents from intervening in the proceedings by conferring on them a limited ‘‘right to be heard and comment’’ in the proceedings. We conclude that the statute does not prohibit a trial court from permitting foster parents to intervene in such proceedings.")

• SC21055, SC21068 Concurrence & Dissent
• SC21055, SC21068 First Dissent
• SC21055, SC21068 Second Dissent

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46961 - Jackson v. Prince (“The self-represented plaintiff, Nicole C. Jackson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her action against the defendants, Joshua Prince (Joshua), Melinda Prince (Melinda), Amy Zabetakis, and John B. Devine. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Joshua and Melinda on the basis of insufficiency of process and insufficient service of process, (2) failing to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to dismissing the action as to Joshua and Melinda, and (3) concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Zabetakis and Devine on the basis of insufficient service of process. We conclude that the court erred in concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Melinda and in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to dismissing the action as to Joshua. We also conclude that the court properly dismissed the action as to Devine and Zabetakis. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46853 - Gerald Metals, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at International Underwriting Assn. of London (“This appeal arises from a dispute over whether the plaintiffs, Gerald Metals, LLC, and Gerald Metals S.A., suffered a covered loss to their insured property under the marine cargo insurance policies issued by the defendant insurer, Certain Underwriters at International Underwriting Association of London. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following its granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) determined that the plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues of whether the insured property was stolen and/or misappropriated and seized and (2) concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether (a) the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate ‘‘physical loss or damage’’ under the policies and (b) the loss was subject to the policies’ seizure exclusion. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47007 - DiSpazio v. Pacapelli ("The plaintiffs, Paul DiSpazio and Maltby Street, LLC (Maltby Street), appeal from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Eugene Pacapelli and other officers and members of the board of directors of West Cove Marina Coop, Inc. (West Cove), and from its granting of the defendants' motion for sanctions. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted (1) the defendants' motion for summary judgment because a release of liability entered into by the plaintiffs for the benefit of West Cove in connection with prior litigation (2015 release) did not preclude the present action; and (2) the defendants' motion for sanctions because the plaintiffs' claims were not without basis in law or fact and the court did not make a requisite finding of bad faith. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46729 - Canady v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal, (2) rejected his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) concluded that his due process claim was procedurally defaulted. We disagree that the court improperly denied the petition for certification and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC46974 - Pirri v. Chow ("The substitute defendant, Mong Chin Liu, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Rosaria Pirri, executor of the estate of the plaintiff, Eugenio Pirri, on her claim of adverse possession with respect to a portion of the substitute defendant's property (disputed area). On appeal, the substitute defendant claims that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the plaintiff adversely possessed the disputed area under a claim of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46582 - State v. Joseph E. (“Following a conditional plea of nolo contendere, entered pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, the defendant, Joseph E., appeals from the judgment of conviction of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2021) § 53a-217. The defendant entered his conditional plea following the court’s denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence seized from his home. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress because the search warrant application and affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the search of his home and the seizure of his property therein. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

SC20994 - Gardner v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services (“The sole question in this appeal is whether an administrative law judge with the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) has the authority to award ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits under General Statutes § 31-308 (a) to a claimant who has reached maximum medical improvement and is therefore eligible to receive permanent partial disability benefits under § 31-308 (b). The Appellate Court answered that question in the negative. Gardner v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services, 223 Conn. App.221, 242–43, 308 A.3d 550 (2024). We disagree with the Appellate Court and conclude that § 31-308 (b) gives an administrative law judge the discretion to award a claimant, after he or she reaches maximum medical improvement, ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits under § 31-308 (a) in lieu of permanent partial disability benefits under § 31-308 (b), up to the statutory maximum of 520 weeks. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Workers' Compensation Law

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 38, for March 18, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 488 - 510)
• Volume 351: Orders (Pages 912 - 913)
• Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 231: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 280 - 493)
• Volume 231: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 231: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC47071 - Spinnato v. Boyd ("The defendant Charles Bruno appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiff Catherine Spinnato on the plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment in the operative complaint and on the defendant's operative counterclaim. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in (1) construing the word 'liquidate' in the trust instrument to require neither the sale nor the distribution of the trust property within one year of the death of the decedent, Nancy A. Bruno (decedent), (2) ruling against him on one of his claims for breach of fiduciary duty, (3) refusing to impute knowledge of the terms of the trust to the plaintiff, and (4) declining to rule simultaneously on the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of attorney's fees and, instead, ordering additional proceedings to be held on that issue. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with the defendant's first, second, and fourth claims and deem the defendant's third claim to be abandoned as inadequately briefed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46852 - Gama Aviation (Management), Inc. v. Senbahar (“The plaintiff, Gama Aviation (Management), Inc., commenced this action against the defendant, Izak Senbahar, alleging breach of the defendant’s agreement to personally guarantee payment of a promissory note that had been executed in favor of the plaintiff by a third-party borrower. The trial court rendered summary judgment for the plaintiff and, in so doing, rejected the defendant’s statute of limitations defense, concluding that, although the plaintiff’s action was not brought within the original six year limitation period, the action was not time barred because the defendant acknowledged the debt owed under the guaranty agreement, thereby resetting that six year period. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s determination that he could not prevail on his statute of limitations defense as a matter of law because, the defendant contends, he never acknowledged the debt and, consequently, the plaintiff’s action is barred by the original limitation period. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47155 - Daly v. Dept. of Children & Families ("The plaintiff, William Daly, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of a hearing officer of the defendant, the Department of Children and Families (department), who upheld the department's decision to substantiate allegations of sexual abuse against a child and to place the plaintiff's name on the Central Registry of Persons Responsible for Child Abuse and Neglect (central registry). See General Statutes § 17a-101k (c) (1). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's findings that (1) he had sexually abused a child and (2) his name should be placed on the central registry by the department. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's administrative appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46535 - Jacob-Dick v. Dick ("The defendant, Charles H. Dick, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion for contempt filed by the self-represented plaintiff, Jennifer R. Jacob-Dick, known also as Jenna McPartland. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in finding him in contempt and (2) imposed an improper criminal sanction. We agree with the defendant’s first claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC47091 - L. K. v. K. K. ("In this marital dissolution action, the plaintiff, L. K., appeals from the trial court’s denial of her postjudgment motion for an order requiring the defendant, K. K., to pay the balance of attorney’s fees awarded as a part of the judgment of dissolution. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied her motion for order on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to provide the court with a new, court-ordered fee affidavit. The plaintiff argues that the fee affidavit was unnecessary, waived by the defendant, and impossible to obtain or recreate. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45965, AC45966 - Balbuena v. Commissioner of Correction (“These consolidated appeals arise from separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Guillermo Balbuena, challenging his 2004 conviction of sexual assault and unlawful restraint (amended first petition) and his 2014 conviction of conspiracy to commit murder (amended second petition). In Docket No. AC 45965, the petitioner appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his amended first petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and he claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the amended first petition because the petitioner no longer was in custody on the 2004 conviction when he filed it. In Docket No. AC 45966, the petitioner appeals from the judgment of the court dismissing in part and denying in part the amended second petition, and he claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed the actual innocence count for failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief could be granted and (2) denied the ineffective assistance of counsel count after trial. We affirm the judgments of the habeas court.”)

AC46490 - Gusan v. Commissioner of Correction (“Upon the granting of certification to appeal, the petitioner, Brandon Gusan, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his corrected, revised, first amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the court erred in rejecting his claim that his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel was violated by virtue of his trial counsel’s failure (1) to file a motion for discovery with respect to data that had been extracted from his cell phone and (2) to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained following an allegedly illegal traffic stop. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC46753 - State v. Marciano (Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; motion to suppress; “On appeal, the state claims that no constitutional violation occurred because, at all relevant times, the arresting officer was acting in his community caretaking capacity. Alternatively, the state argues that, even if the officer was not acting in his community caretaking capacity, the defendant was not unlawfully seized because the officer’s conduct did not constitute a show of authority sufficient to cause a reasonable person in the defendant’s position to believe that he was not free to leave. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC46969 - Brown v. Zoning Board of Appeals ("The plaintiff, Virginia Brown, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Avon, which upheld the decision of the zoning enforcement officer to approve an application for a building permit filed by the plaintiff's adjoining property owners to build a retaining wall along the shared property line for the purpose of expanding their driveway. The plaintiff challenges on appeal the court's determination that the defendant properly held that the proposed retaining wall was not a "structure" within the meaning of the applicable zoning regulations and therefore did not need to comply with setback requirements. Because the permit approved by the defendant has expired, we dismiss the plaintiff's appeal as moot and vacate the judgment of the trial court and the decision of the defendant.")

• Posted in:
• Land Use Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 37, for March 11, 2025 is now available.

Table of Contents
Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 428 - 488)
Volume 351: Orders (Pages 910 - 912)
Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 231: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 171 - 289)
Volume 231: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC20749 - State v. Dabate ("A jury found the defendant, Richard G. Dabate, guilty of, among other offenses, murdering his wife in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a in connection with a staged invasion of their home in Ellington. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, claiming that he is entitled to a new trial for the following reasons: (1) multiple instances of prosecutorial impropriety deprived him of his right to a fair trial; (2) the prosecutorial impropriety was so deliberate and flagrant that this court should exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to reverse his conviction; (3) the trial court erred in admitting data obtained from the victim's Fitbit; and (4) the trial court should have suppressed a statement given to the police because it was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. Although we agree with the defendant that the prosecutor engaged in multiple acts of impropriety at trial that we consider troubling, we conclude that those improprieties did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. We also reject the defendant's other claims of error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC45708 - Margarita O. v. Fernando I. ("The self-represented defendant, Fernando I., appeals from the postdissolution judgment of the trial court finding the plaintiff, Margarita O., in contempt of a court order, which concerned the listing of the parties’ marital residence for sale, and distributing the proceeds from the sale of the residence, as well as from the court’s denial of his postjudgment motion to disqualify the judicial authority. Additionally, the plaintiff cross appeals from the court’s contempt finding. On direct appeal, we distill the defendant’s claims to be that the court (1) incorrectly calculated his share of the sale proceeds in several ways, including by reducing his share by $25,000 in postsecondary educational support that the court improperly ordered him to pay to the plaintiff, and (2) improperly denied his motion to disqualify. On cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found her in contempt because the order underlying the contempt finding was not clear and unambiguous. Turning first to the plaintiff’s cross appeal, we conclude that the order at issue was clear and unambiguous, and, therefore, we reject the plaintiff’s claim challenging the court’s contempt finding. With respect to the defendant’s direct appeal, we agree only with the defendant’s claim that the court improperly ordered him to pay, and deducted from his share of the sale proceeds, $25,000 in postsecondary educational support. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46578 - Lukasik v. Kopinska ("The plaintiff, Czeslaw Lukasik, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court in this child custody action filed against the defendant, Karolina Kopinska. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court abused its discretion by failing to make a specific finding of the presumptive child support amount before applying the deviation criteria, and (2) its child support award of $600 per week was arbitrary and not in accordance with the child support guidelines (guidelines). We agree with the plaintiff’s second claim and conclude that the court improperly deviated from the guidelines. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment with respect to the order of child support and remand the case for further proceedings on that issue. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47198- Idlibi v. Connecticut State Dental Commission ("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's failure to comply with sanctions imposed by a prior decision of the commission rendered him unfit or incompetent during that period of noncompliance, and, accordingly, ordering further disciplinary sanctions with respect to the plaintiff's dental license. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the commission lacked jurisdiction to suspend his dental license, (2) the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for remand to introduce additional evidence, and (3) the commission's final decision was arbitrary and capricious in that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiff's administrative appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Recent Opinions