AC46709 - White v. FCW Law Offices (“The plaintiff, Frank Charles White, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in his favor against the defendants, FCW Law Offices and two John Does, following a hearing in damages on his civil action seeking damages for identity theft pursuant to General Statutes § 52-571h (b) and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court failed to comply with § 52-571h (b) when it did not award him treble damages under § 52-571h. We reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45832 - Mystic Oil Co. v. Shaukat, LLC (“The defendants Shaukat, LLC (Shaukat), and Raja Shaukat Ali appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a hearing in damages following the rendering of summary judgment as to liability only in favor of the plaintiff, Mystic Oil Company, Inc., with respect to its claims for breach of contract and breach of guarantee. Specifically, the defendants challenge on appeal (1) the court’s award of certain damages and (2) the court’s granting of the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46014 - Hallock v. Hallock ("The defendant, Jennifer L. Hallock, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Timothy J. Hallock, and entering certain financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) failed to properly consider her pendente lite motions for alimony and counsel fees, (2) applied an improper legal standard to her claim for alimony and the division of the marital property, (3) applied an improper legal standard to deny her claim for attorney's fees, (4) improperly took judicial notice of facts regarding her employment prospects and earning capacity, and (5) improperly discredited her testimony that the plaintiff's consumption of alcohol caused the marriage to end. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46184 - Karen v. Loftus ("This marital dissolution matter, which requires the resolution of jurisdictional and merits related issues arising from the arbitration of a specific aspect of the parties' prenuptial agreement, returns to us for a second time. Following the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the plaintiff, Cindy L. Karen, has endeavored to open that judgment for the limited purpose of allowing discovery with respect to her claim that the arbitration award, which subsequently was incorporated into the dissolution judgment, was procured by fraud committed by the defendant, William P. Loftus. In this appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied her motion to open the dissolution judgment for the limited purpose of conducting discovery after it concluded that she had failed to establish probable cause that the arbitration award pertaining to the financial ramifications of the defendant's departure from his employment with Merrill Lynch, and its subsequent incorporation into the dissolution judgment, was obtained by fraud. The defendant disagrees with the merits of the plaintiff's claim and, additionally, contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's motion to open because her challenge to the arbitration award was not timely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-420 (b). We are not persuaded by the defendant's jurisdictional claim and agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly concluded that she had failed to establish probable cause as to her fraud claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment denying the plaintiff's motion to open and remand the matter for further proceedings.")

AC45809 - Labieniec v. Megna ("In this custody dispute, the defendant, Robert Megna, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a postjudgment motion to modify custody of the parties' minor child, C, filed by the plaintiff, Jennifer Labieniec, and from the denial of his postjudgment motion for a passport for C. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motion for order regarding a passport for C, and (2) modified the agreement of the parties as to C's primary residence for school purposes. We disagree with the defendant as to his first claim but agree with him on his second claim. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46008 - State v. Giannone (Sale of an assault weapon in violation of General Statutes § 53-202b (a) (1); possession of a silencer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-211; possession of a large capacity magazine in violation of General Statutes § 53-202w (c); “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the charges against him and his motion to suppress evidence seized by the police because the statutes under which he was convicted violate his right to bear arms under the second amendment to the United States constitution. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022), which was issued after the trial court denied the defendant’s motions but prior to his sentencing, we conclude that the judgments of the trial court must be reversed and the cases remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motions. In addition, we provide guidance to the trial court regarding how it should analyze the claims raised in the defendant’s motions under Bruen.”)

AC46501 - State v. Shane K. (Assault in the third degree; two counts of criminal violation of a protective; motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case for improper venue, asserting that the court incorrectly (a) concluded that the state constitution does not require a criminal defendant to be tried in the judicial district where the charged offense occurred and (b) applied General Statutes § 51-352c (a) and (b), and (2) failed to instruct the jury on venue. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 11, for September 10, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents
Volume 227: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 786 - 898)
Volume 227: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices

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

AC46292 - LendingHome Funding Corp. v. REI Holdings, LLC ("The defendant Homeowners Finance Co. appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, LendingHome Funding Corporation, and denying its motion to reconsider. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly concluded, on the basis that title to the property at issue had become absolute in the plaintiff, that the defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15 because, according to the defendant, an appellate stay was in effect when the law days passed, thereby rendering them ineffective, and (2) failed to consider that, even if absolute title had vested in the plaintiff, it had inherent, continuing jurisdiction to open the judgment of strict foreclosure under the circumstances of the present action. We conclude that (1) no appellate stay was in effect when the law days passed, such that the law days were legally effective and, without redemption, absolute title to the property vested in the plaintiff, thereby precluding the defendant from obtaining relief pursuant to § 49-15, and (2) the circumstances of the present action did not justify the exercise of the court's inherent, continuing jurisdiction to afford the defendant equitable relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47902 - In re Christian G. ("The petitioner, Christian G., appealed to the Superior Court challenging the orders of the Probate Court denying his petitions for the voluntary appointment of a guardian and for the designation of a minor child as having special immigrant juvenile status. See General Statutes §§ 45a-608n and 45a-610. Following a trial de novo, the Superior Court denied the petitions, and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

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

AC 46544 - Ammar I. v. Evelyn W. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ammar I., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition for third-party visitation with O, S, and M (children), his biological children with respect to whom his parental rights were terminated in 2019. Although the plaintiff raises various claims on appeal, the dispositive ones are whether the court properly determined that (1) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (act), which has been adopted by Connecticut and codified at General Statutes § 46b-115 et seq., and (2) General Statutes § 52- 592 does not apply in the present case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46198 - Moon v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal, and (2) rejected his actual innocence claim. We conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, but we agree with its determination that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving actual innocence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court denying the petitioner’s habeas petition.”)

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions

AC46295 - Orlando v. Liburd ("In this action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff, Rocco Orlando, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the third-party defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide), on counts three and four of the operative amended complaint and from the court's denial of a motion for leave to amend an earlier complaint. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied his request to amend, which prevented him from curing alleged pleading deficiencies and (2) dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his counts directed against Nationwide because, contrary to the court's conclusion, the claims therein were ripe under the "make whole doctrine." We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 10, for September 3, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents
Volume 227: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 698 - 785)
Volume 227: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC46385 - State v. Randolph (Violation of probation; revoking probation; “The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his counsel’s motion to withdraw her appearance and (2) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into his competency to stand trial and, consequently, erred in denying his motion for a competency evaluation pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56d. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46382 - State v. Dayvid J. (Strangulation in the second degree; disorderly conduct; writ of error coram nobis; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition and, therefore, erred in dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46513 - State v. Barnes (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in determining that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s motion because he had been released on special parole and, therefore, was no longer serving ‘an executed period of incarceration’ as prescribed by § 53a-39 (a). We conclude that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s motion but correctly concluded that the defendant was not entitled to relief under § 53a-39 (a) because he was no longer serving an ‘executed period of incarceration.’ The form of the judgment is improper, as the court should have denied rather than dismissed the motion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing the defendant’s motion for modification and remand the case with direction to deny that motion.”)

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

AC 45960 - N. R. v. M. P. ("The plaintiff, N. R., appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the defendant, M. P., sole legal and physical custody of their two minor children. On appeal, N. R. claims that the court improperly (1) awarded M. P. sole legal and physical custody of the children, (2) issued an order that, if N. R. is not current on child support, he must share one half of the travel expenses for the minor children to visit him in Connecticut, and (3) relied on the testimony of the guardian ad litem in its analysis of the best interests of the minor children. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 46228 - Sanchez v. Hartford ("The defendants, the city of Hartford (city) and James Davis, a police officer employed by the city, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a jury trial finding Davis negligent in violation of General Statutes § 14-283, the city liable for indemnification pursuant to General Statutes § 7-465, and finding the plaintiff, Jose Sanchez, contributorily negligent. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court committed plain error by (1) (a) instructing the jury on common law principles of negligence regarding the operation of a motor vehicle, including the duty to drive with due care, and (b) failing to instruct the jury that Davis, as an operator of an emergency vehicle, was permitted to disregard driving statutes, ordinances and regulations, and (2) failing to instruct the jury that, pursuant to § 14-283 (e), other operators of motor vehicles have a mandatory duty to drive to a position parallel to the curb of the roadway and remain there until the emergency vehicle has passed, ‘‘[u]pon the immediate approach of an emergency vehicle making use of . . . an audible warning signal device and such visible flashing or revolving lights . . . .’’ General Statutes § 14- 283 (e). We conclude that the record does not support the defendants’ claims that the challenged portions of the jury instructions constituted plain error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC 20800 - Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ammar Idlibi, a pediatric dentist, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court, which rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Hartford Courant Company, on his defamation claims. The plaintiff’s complaint centers around two articles published by the defendant that allegedly exaggerated the scope and seriousness of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Department of Public Health (department) and the Connecticut State Dental Commission that resulted in a reprimand, fines, and probation of the plaintiff’s license to practice as a dentist. The courts below concluded that the five allegedly defamatory statements contained in the articles either were substantially true or were subject to the fair report privilege and, therefore, were protected speech under the first amendment to the United States constitution. In this certified appeal, the plaintiff’s primary claim is that he should have been permitted to proceed to trial on a sixth allegation, one only vaguely alluded to in his pleadings, that a stock (or file) photograph accompanying the defendant’s articles also was defamatory. Although this case raises important questions about the extent to which the judiciary must accommodate the inexperience of self-represented litigants, and potentially implicates some constitutional questions of first impression that the parties have not fully briefed, we ultimately conclude that this sixth claim is not properly in the case and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC 20800 Dissent - Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co.

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 9, for August 27, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 227: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 593 - 698)
Volume 227: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Assignment of Judges
Miscellaneous Notices
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC46512 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Durant (“The defendant, Fred N. Durante, also known as Fred N. Durante, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for approval of trial court and appellate costs and attorney’s fees filed by the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion because it was untimely under Practice Book § 11-21 and was made without any showing of excusable neglect to permit the late filing. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46399 - Bucci v. Bridgeport ("The plaintiff, Elizabeth Bucci, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court following its granting of a motion for summary judgment that was filed by the defendant, the city of Bridgeport, and its denial of her motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court improperly (1) concluded that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist with respect to whether Bridgeport Police Officer Anthony Gianpoalo was acting within the scope of his employment or official duties, and (2) determined that her claim based on the defendant's negligent hiring of Bridgeport Police Officer John Carrano was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46511 - Carty v. Merchant 99-111 Founders, LLC ("The plaintiff, Lloyd Carty, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Merchant 99-111 Founders, LLC, on the plaintiff's one count complaint sounding in premises liability arising out of his slip and fall. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the basis of the ongoing storm doctrine because (1) the defendant never produced evidence to refute the claim that the plaintiff fell on preexisting ice, and (2) the plaintiff raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether he fell on preexisting ice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46215 - State v. Bolden (Evading responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle; tampering with physical evidence; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) with regard to the tampering charge, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed that a criminal investigation was about to be instituted and that he had concealed a thing with the purpose to impair its availability in such investigation, and (2) the court’s refusal to answer the jury’s questions during its deliberations resulted in an improper enlargement of the charged crimes. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46111 - State v. Tahir L. (Sexual assault in the fourth degree; risk of injury to a child; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his right to due process was violated by the trial court’s preliminary instructions to the jury, (2) his right to due process was violated by the court’s final instructions to the jury, (3) the court erred in admitting certain evidence, and (4) the state committed prosecutorial impropriety. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

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

SC 20750 - State v. Mebane (Conviction of felony murder, murder, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit; “Following a jury trial, the defendant, Lonnie Mebane, was convicted of murder, criminal possession of a firearm, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, Eric Diaz. In this direct appeal, the defendant raises the following claims: (1) the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial by asking three witnesses questions that favored the state and prejudiced the defendant, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a reasonable inference that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim, and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence and the defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime. We affirm the judgment.”)

• Dissent

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