The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 37, for March 21, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 360 - 391)
• Volume 346: Orders (Pages 914 - 916)
• Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 218: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 216 - 288)
• Volume 218: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
• Volume 218: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC20626 - Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC (“The plaintiff filed a petition for certification to appeal, which we granted, limited to the following issues: (1) 'Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the public policy contained in . . . § 31-73 (b) is inapplicable to the facts of this case and, as a matter of law, cannot form the basis for a common-law wrongful [discharge] action?’ And (2) ‘[d]id the Appellate Court correctly conclude, in the alternative, that the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage failed to support the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant actually violated the public policy contained in § 31-73 (b)?’ Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC, 338 Conn. 915, 915–16, 259 A.3d 1180 (2021). We answer both questions in the negative.”

“The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.”)

• SC20626 Dissent - Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44925 - Stewart v. Old Republic National Title Ins. Co. (“On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that, pursuant to the plaintiffs’ title insurance policies, the defendant had no duty to defend the plaintiffs in two actions involving the plaintiffs’ properties. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC41663 - Leffingwell v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus; “In that petition, he claimed, inter alia, that his federal and state constitutional rights were violated as a result of legislative changes pertaining to the administration and application of risk reduction earned credits (RREC). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition without first providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In accordance with our Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), we conclude that the habeas court should not have dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to § 23-29 without first providing the petitioner with notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or other written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.”)

AC41635 - Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition; claim that federal and state constitutional rights were violated as a result of legislative changes; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition without first providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In accordance with our Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), we conclude that the habeas court should not have dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to § 23-29 without first providing the petitioner with notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or other written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.”)

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

AC44356 - State v. Delacruz-Gomez (Assault of public safety personnel and interfering with an officer; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence (1) testimony as to the names of felony charges contained in a prior outstanding warrant for the defendant’s arrest as prior uncharged misconduct evidence, and (2) testimony naming the task force that had executed that warrant, specifically, the Violent Fugitive Task Force. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

SC20584 - Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the plaintiffs, who are the putative beneficiaries of a testamentary bequest, have standing under the special interest exception to the common law rule, codified at General Statutes § 3-125, that the attorney general has exclusive authority to enforce the terms of a charitable gift, to enforce the terms of a bequest from Fred H. Rettich to Our Lady of Mercy School (OLM) in Madison. The plaintiffs appeal, upon our granting of their petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s granting of the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the Archdiocese of Hartford. Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford, 203 Conn. App. 197, 217, 247 A.3d 600 (2021). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that they lacked standing to bring this action. We conclude that the plaintiffs do not come within the 'special interest' exception to the attorney general’s exclusive standing to bring an action to enforce the terms of a charitable gift. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 36, for March 14, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 333 - 359)
• Volume 346: Orders (Pages 910 - 914)
• Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 218: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 85 - 215)
• Volume 218: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 218: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC45304 - V. V. v. V. V. ("The self-represented defendant, V. V., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for relief from abuse filed by E. V. (E), on behalf of the plaintiff, V. V. (V), the minor daughter of the defendant and E, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-15. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that E lacked standing to bring the application on behalf of V, as her next friend, because E’s interests were adverse to those of V. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45151 - Stamford Property Holdings, LLC v. Jashari ("The present appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiff lessor, Stamford Property Holdings, LLC, against the defendant lessees, Dorian Jashari (Jashari) and Ismet Jashari, seeking, inter alia, reformation of a commercial lease between the parties based on unilateral or mutual mistake. The defendants appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, they claim that the court (1) improperly granted reformation of the contract based on the ground of unilateral mistake because, contrary to the court's conclusion, there was no clear, substantial, and convincing proof of inequitable conduct on the part of the defendants, and (2) erred by granting the plaintiff equitable relief because the plaintiff's misconduct before the parties executed the lease barred its claim for reformation. We conclude that the defendants' first claim is moot, and we are not persuaded by their second claim. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the portion of the appeal related to the first claim and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45880 - Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Fosberg ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff landlord, Centrix Management Company, LLC, appeals from the trial court's postjudgment award of attorney's fees to the defendant tenant, Donald Fosberg, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb. The defendant moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-35. The plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the applicable appeal period is not five days under § 47a-35 but, rather, twenty days under Practice Book § 63-1, as it is not challenging the judgment of possession. We conclude that the twenty day appeal period set forth in Practice Book § 63-1 applies to a postjudgment award of attorney's fees in the summary process context. We therefore deny the motion to dismiss.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44938 - Doe v. Quinnipiac University ("The plaintiff, Jane Doe, brought the underlying action against the defendants, Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity, Inc. (fraternity), and Quinnipiac University (Quinnipiac), pursuant to two savings statutes, General Statutes §§ 52-592 (accidental failure of suit statute) and 52-593 (wrong defendant statute).In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in that they failed to prevent members of the fraternity from sexually assaulting her.The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants.On review of the arguments presented on appeal, we interpret the plaintiff's claims to be that the trial court erred in concluding that (1) the process filed with the court never was served on the defendants, (2) the plaintiff's service of process and filing of process violated General Statutes §§ 52-46 and 52-46a, and (3) § 52-592 does not save the plaintiff's action. We dismiss the plaintiff's appeal as moot.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45549 - In re Anthony S. ("The respondent mother, Agnes W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Anthony S. On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly determined that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts toward reunification between the respondent and Anthony, (2) the respondent had failed to rehabilitate to such a degree as to reasonably encourage a belief that she could assume a responsible position in the life of her child, and (3) the termination of the respondent's parental rights was in the best interest of Anthony. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 35, for March 7, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 288 - 332)
• Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 217: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 809 - 888)
• Volume 217: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 904)
• Volume 217: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 218: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 85)
• Volume 218: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

AC45434 - In re Kylie P. ("The respondent mother, Isheika P., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Kylie P. (Kylie). On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court (1) violated her "right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal . . . as guaranteed by the due process clause to the United States constitution" when it purportedly ordered Kylie's attorney to call an additional witness at trial after the close of evidence, (2) was precluded from finding that she failed to rehabilitate because the Department of Children and Families (department) improperly interfered with her parent-child relationship by threatening to remove her youngest child if she returned to Connecticut, (3) erred in concluding that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify her with Kylie, (4) erred in concluding that the department was not required to make reasonable efforts pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-111b (a) (2) because it already had approved a permanency plan for termination of parental rights, and (5) erred in finding that she failed to rehabilitate because there was insufficient evidence on which to make that finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20497 - State v. Calhoun (Eyewitnesses to unsolved murder; Murder charge under§ 53a-54a (a); “The outcome of the trial rested largely on the jury’s assessment of the credibility of Canty and Kierce. Their motivations were subject to impeachment because each of them was incarcerated when they first contacted the state about the case, and they each received consideration from the state in return for testifying pursuant to cooperation agreements. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of murder. The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court made three erroneous rulings requiring reversal, namely, (1) declining to give the jury a jailhouse informant instruction, (2) admitting into evidence the entirety of Canty’s and Kierce’s cooperation agreements, and (3) not allowing defense counsel to cross-examine Kierce regarding certain details of a prior arrest. We affirm the judgment of conviction.”)

SC20521- State v. Curet (“The state appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the conviction of the defendant, Shaila M. Curet, following her conditional plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 21a-277 (a). On appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized by the police following a warrantless entry into her apartment should have been granted. We agree and reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

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

AC45040 - Bradley v. Yovino (“This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiffs, Dhameer Bradley and Malik St. Hilaire, two former students of the defendant Sacred Heart University, Inc. (university), against the university and the defendant Nikki Yovino. Yovino, a fellow student at the university, accused the plaintiffs of sexually assaulting her but later recanted her allegations and pleaded guilty to the charges of falsely reporting an incident in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-180c and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a. In this action, the plaintiffs allege that Yovino committed various torts against them by falsely accusing them of sexual assault and that the university breached its contract with them in the manner in which it conducted an investigation into Yovino’s accusations and by suspending them from the university.

Bradley appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the university as to the count of the complaint brought by him against the university. On appeal, he claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to compel a round of second depositions of certain university employees and his related motion for an extension of time to respond to the university’s motion for summary judgment, (2) rendered summary judgment against him without permitting oral argument on the university’s motion in violation of Practice Book § 11-18, and (3) denied his motion for reargument of his motion to compel and the summary judgment rendered against him. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradley’s motion to compel a second round of depositions or his motion for an extension of time. We also conclude that, although the court improperly deprived the plaintiff of oral argument pursuant to Practice Book § 11-18, that error was harmless because, in light of the procedural posture of this case, there is not a reasonable probability that oral argument would have resulted in the trial court denying the motion for summary judgment. Finally, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradley’s motion for reargument. Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment rendered against Bradley and in favor of the university.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44980 - Mitchell v. Bogonos (Dissolution of marriage; "The defendant, Ianina Bogonos, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Vernal Mitchell, Jr. The defendant claims that the court (1) improperly refused to decide her motion for contempt and other pretrial motions, (2) erred in not finding the plaintiff in contempt and not awarding her attorney's fees, (3) improperly permitted the plaintiff to decide that his comic book collection was not subject to distribution, (4) failed to impute income of $150,000 to the plaintiff, and (5) abused its discretion and exceeded its statutory authority in finding that the defendant committed fraud. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45502 - Wells Fargo Bank, National Assn. v. Doreus ("The self-represented defendant, Elita Doreus, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee for the Holders of the First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF17 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-FF17. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure because the action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44561 - State v. Armstrong (“Attempt to commit robbery in the first degree; firearm possession; “The defendant claims that (1) the court violated his right to self-representation, (2) the court committed instructional error with respect to the essential elements of attempted robbery, (3) the court improperly enhanced his sentence pursuant to § 53a-40 (g), and (4) the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of attempted robbery. We agree with the defendant that the state did not satisfy its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he took a substantial step in the commission of the offense because the evidence did not support a finding that he displayed or threatened the use of what he represented by his words or conduct to be a firearm. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case to the trial court with direction to render a judgment of acquittal.”)

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

AC45686 - In re Nevaeh G.-M. ("The respondent Kimberly G. appeals from the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, adjudicating the respondent's three children—Nevaeh G.-M., Melinda G.-M., and Jackson A.-R.—neglected and uncared for and terminating her parental rights as to all three children. On appeal, the respondent claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's determination that the petitioner had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent had failed to rehabilitate in accordance with General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), and (2) the court improperly (a) failed to order a court-appointed psychological evaluator to disclose to the respondent certain testing materials on which the evaluator had based her opinion, (b) refused the respondent's request for a Porter hearing regarding the evaluator's testing methods, and (c) admitted the evaluator's written report over a hearsay objection. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's judgments terminating the parental rights of the respondent on the statutory ground of failure to rehabilitate and that the claimed evidentiary errors, even if established, were harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20682 - Markatos v. Zoning Board of Appeals ("The issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that a motion to intervene was untimely. The plaintiffs, David Markatos and Jennifer Holme, appealed to the trial court from a decision of the named defendant, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of New Canaan (board), upholding the issuance of a zoning permit to the intervening defendant, Grace Farms Foundation, Inc. (Grace Farms). The proposed intervenors, Timothy J. Curt and Dona M. Bissonnette, sought intervention nearly nineteen months later. The trial court, noting that it had already issued a decision remanding the case to the board for further proceedings, denied their motion to intervene as untimely. The proposed intervenors now appeal from that decision. For the reasons that follow, we reject the proposed intervenors' claim of error and affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to intervene.")

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