AC45169 - Speer v. Norwich ("In the underlying action, the self-represented plaintiff, Sheri Speer, sought injunctive relief that would effectively prohibit the defendant, the city of Norwich, from proceeding with a tax foreclosure sale of real property she owned. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's granting of a motion to dismiss in favor of the defendant. The court determined that the issues raised in the action were moot and, thus, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her action. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court erred in finding that the matter was moot, (2) even if the matter was moot, the collateral consequences doctrine still applies, and (3) the court 'improperly den[ied] [her] due process by not enjoining the tax sale proceedings to which she was not a party and to which were subjected to the impaired functionality and limitations on higher bids imposed [by] COVID-19 restrictions.' We dismiss the appeal as moot.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43232 - Villafane v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus without affording him an opportunity to be heard. We agree that the court abused its discretion by denying the petition for certification to appeal. Further, we conclude, in light of our Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and in Brown’s companion case, Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), that the habeas court improperly dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 23-29 without providing the petitioner with prior notice of its intention to dismiss, on its own motion, the petition and an opportunity to submit a brief or a written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC44977 - Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ammar Idlibi, a pediatric dentist, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Hartford Courant Company, on his claims of defamation and intentional misrepresentation. This appeal arises from two articles the defendant published reporting on the plaintiff's disciplinary proceedings before the Department of Public Health (DPH) and the Connecticut State Dental Commission (commission). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erroneously (1) concluded that the fair report privilege applied to the allegedly defamatory statements made by the defendant, and (2) rendered summary judgment on the plaintiff's intentional misrepresentation claim. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45039 - Westry v. Litchfield Visitation Center ("The self-represented plaintiff, Eric Westry, appeals from the trial court's judgment granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Litchfield Visitation Center. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in (1) setting aside a default that had been entered against the defendant and (2) granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to commence the action within the ninety day time limitation set forth in General Statutes § 46a-101 (e).We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC20438 - State v. Gary S. (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on certain counts, and (2) the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing and rebuttal arguments that deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Because the state concedes that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction on the charge of risk of injury to a child pertaining to one of the complainants, A, we reverse the trial court’s judgment with respect to that count. We reject each of the defendant’s remaining claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction in all other respects.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 23, for December 6, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 345: Connecticut Reports (Pages 354 - 421)
• Volume 345: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 216: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 782 - 839)
• Volume 216: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

AC45338 - Simonoff v. Commissioner of Correction (“Although the petitioner challenges the merits of the habeas court’s denial of his amended petition, he has failed to brief the threshold issue of whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)

AC43321 - Canales v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her petition for certification to appeal following its determination that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay. We disagree and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.”)

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

SC20408 - State v. Brown (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of felony murder. Specifically, he contends that there was no evidence that he intended to commit a larceny, that he committed a larceny, or that he used or threatened the immediate use of physical force to effectuate a taking, as required to establish that he committed robbery in the third degree. The defendant also contends that, if this court agrees with his claim of insufficient evidence of felony murder, it cannot reinstate his vacated conviction of the intentional manslaughter in the first degree charge because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not shoot the victim in self-defense. Finally, the defendant claims that his conviction must be reversed because the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial improprieties during closing argument. We reject the defendant’s insufficiency claim and, therefore, need not address his claim related to the manslaughter conviction. We also reject the defendant’s claims of prosecutorial impropriety and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC45077 - J. M. v. E. M. ("In this summary process action based on nonpayment of rent, the plaintiff landlord, J. M., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the action in favor of the defendant tenant, E. M. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court incorrectly found that he had reinstated the tenancy by accepting the defendant's tendered payments labeled as 'rent' after service of the notice and after the quit date specified in the notice to quit despite the fact that the notice to quit included a use and occupancy disclaimer and (2) the court's determination also was improper because the governor's executive orders affecting eviction proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic required that any use and occupancy disclaimer in the notice to quit not be effective until thirty days after the notice was served and required the plaintiff to accept rent payments during that thirty day period. The plaintiff further requests that this court adjudicate the merits of the defendant's affirmative defenses to the summary process action, notwithstanding that the court did not reach the merits of those defenses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC44151 - Ingles v. Ingles (Dissolution of marriage; motion for contempt; "The defendant, Maribel C. Ingles, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Juan B. Ingles, and denying her motion for contempt. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) misapplied the law when it found that the plaintiff was not in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a pendente lite order, (2) abused its discretion in awarding her alimony in the amount of $250 per week for a period of two years, (3) improperly failed to value the parties' pensions and equalize their distribution, and (4) abused its discretion in declining to award her attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 22, for November 29, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 345: Orders (Pages 922 - 961)
• Volume 345: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 216: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 632 - 782)
• Volume 216: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

AC44635 - Waterbury v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (“The plaintiff, the city of Waterbury, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the named defendant, the Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act (defendant), dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the defendant Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division (board). The board held that the defendant Thomas F. Eccleston II (claimant) was eligible for unemployment benefits because he was not discharged for wilful misconduct, even though he tested positive for marijuana use. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board (1) erred in finding the Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA); see General Statutes § 21a-408 et seq.; and specifically General Statutes § 21a-408p, applicable to the present case, and (2) erroneously concluded that the claimant was not discharged for wilful misconduct. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

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

AC44740 - 307 White Street Realty, LLC v. Beaver Brook Group, LLC (“The present appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiff lessee, 307 White Street Realty, LLC, against the defendant lessor, Beaver Brook Group, LLC, to enforce an option to purchase clause in the parties' commercial lease (lease option), which included certain concomitant contractual and statutory obligations related to the Hazardous Waste Establishment Transfer Act, General Statutes § 22a-134 et seq. (Transfer Act). The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the present action as moot because, after the plaintiff commenced it, the parties executed a purchase and sale agreement regarding the leased property that purportedly supersedes the lease option with respect to the sale of the property such that the court no longer can afford any practical relief to the plaintiff by adjudicating the underlying action. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) determined that the defendant's motion to dismiss implicated the court's subject matter jurisdiction, (2) failed to hold an evidentiary hearing necessary to resolve disputed material facts, and (3) concluded that the execution of the purchase and sale agreement rendered the plaintiff's action moot in its entirety. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly granted the motion to dismiss, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court and remand for further proceedings.”)

AC45078 - Tremont Public Advisors, LLC v. Materials Innovation & Recycling Authority (“The plaintiff, Tremont Public Advisors, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following the court's decision striking the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that the defendant, Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority (MIRA), formerly known as Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, is exempt from liability under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., for engaging in allegedly illegitimate bidding practices. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45141 - L. L. v. M. B. ("The plaintiff, L. L., on behalf of her minor daughter, N. R., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her application for a domestic violence restraining order pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2021) § 46b-15, as amended by Public Acts 2021, No. 21-78. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly dismissed her application on the basis that she was not eligible for relief because she did not fall within the definition of "[f]amily or household member" as set forth in General Statutes § 46b-38a (2). We reject the plaintiff's claim that the court improperly determined that she did not fall within the definition of family or household member but conclude that the form of the judgment is improper and, therefore, remand this case with direction to deny the plaintiff's application.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC210039 Order on Motion - State v. Pan (“The defendant, Qinxuan Pan, seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his motion for modification of the $20 million bond that was set in connection with murder charges against him. The defendant claims that the trial court, Harmon, J., abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify the $20 million bond set at his arraignment by the trial court, B. Fischer, J., because (1) the bail amount is unreasonably high, and (2) the trial court incorrectly concluded that it lacked the authority under Practice Book § 38-8 to grant the defendant’s request for a 10 percent cash option. Although we conclude that the $20 million bond amount was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion given the extraordinary flight risk and public safety considerations presented in this case, we agree with the defendant’s second claim and conclude that remand to the trial court is necessary for that court to consider its authority to grant a 10 percent cash option. Because this case highlights the existence of several substantive and procedural issues concerning the information on which the judges of the Superior Court rely in setting reasonable bond amounts, we also address the procedures applicable to any future bond modification proceedings. Accordingly, we grant the defendant’s petition for review, and we grant the relief requested in part.”)

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

AC45427 - In re G. H. ("The respondent mother, Jessica M. H., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, G. H. (G) and N. H. (N). On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court (1) improperly concluded that she had failed to rehabilitate to such a degree as to reasonably encourage a belief that she could assume a responsible position in the lives of her children, (2) made inconsistent statements in its memorandum of decision that require reversal, and (3) improperly concluded that the termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC45183, AC45199, AC45369 - In re Maliyah M. ("These three appeals present the same legal claim and involve similar, though unrelated, factual and procedural histories. In each appeal, the respondent parent appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his or her parental rights. On appeal, each respondent asserts the same claim—that the court 'denied the respondent the due process of law under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution' when it conducted the termination of parental rights trial, either in whole or in part, virtually, via Microsoft Teams, without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was a compelling need for virtual testimony.

After the respondents filed their principal briefs in each appeal, this court granted the unopposed motions filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, requesting that her brief be due thirty days after our Supreme Court issued its decisions in In re Annessa J., 343 Conn. 642, ___ A.3d ___ (2022), and its companion cases, In re Vada V., 343 Conn. 730, 275 A.3d 1172 (2022), and In re Aisjaha N., 343 Conn. 709, 275 A.3d 1181 (2022), which involved claims similar to the claim in the present cases. Our Supreme Court issued those decisions on June 20, 2022, and we now conclude that In re Annessa J. is dispositive of the issue in the present appeals. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 21, for November 22, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 345: Connecticut Reports (Pages 290 - 354)
• Volume 345: Orders (Pages 919 - 922)
• Volume 345: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 216: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 530 - 632)
• Volume 216: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
• Volume 216: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC45241 - In re Aubrey K. ("The respondent mother, Victoria K., 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 daughter, Aubrey K. (Aubrey), on the ground that the respondent’s acts of parental commission or omission denied Aubrey the care necessary for her well-being pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (C).2 The court also found that, although the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with Aubrey, the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts; see General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (1); and that termination of the respondent’s parental rights was in Aubrey’s best interest. See General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (2). On appeal, the respondent’s single claim is that there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the termination of her parental rights was in Aubrey’s best interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20505 - Adams v. Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co. ("This appeal requires us to revisit the requirements for a forum to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in the wake of the United States Supreme Court's recent decisions considering this issue in the context of product liability actions. More particularly, we consider whether the corporation's contacts with the forum can sufficiently "relate to" such a cause of action, such that the forum's exercise of specific personal jurisdiction would be consonant with due process, in the absence of any activity or occurrence in the forum concerning either the specific product or product model that allegedly malfunctioned. The plaintiffs, John S. Adams and Mary Lou Hanney, coadministrators of the estate of Ryan Michael Adams, appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of the named defendant, Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co., rendered after the granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss the product liability claim brought against it. The plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly failed to recognize that, as long as the plaintiffs' cause of action is not materially different from an action that might have directly resulted from a person's use of the defendant's product in Connecticut, exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant would satisfy both Connecticut's applicable long arm statute and due process. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44665 - Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court incorrectly dismissed his claims that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, violated his constitutional rights to (1) procedural due process, (2) equal protection of the law, and (3) freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We disagree that the court improperly dismissed the petitioner’s first claim. We agree, however, that the court improperly dismissed his second and third claims. We therefore affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”)

AC42852 - Stenner v. Commissioner of Correction and AC43779 - Greenfield v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioners claim that the habeas courts erred in concluding that the petitioners failed to establish ‘good cause’ pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e) to overcome the rebuttable presumption of unreasonable delay stemming from the untimely filing of their respective habeas petitions. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the habeas courts.”)

AC41627 - Hodge v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the dispositive claim raised by the petitioner is that the court improperly dismissed his amended habeas petition under § 23-29 without notice and a hearing.1 In light of our Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and in Brown’s companion case, Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), we conclude that the habeas court committed error in dismissing the amended habeas petition pursuant to § 23-29 without providing to the pettioner prior notice of its intention to dismiss, on its own motion, the amended habeas petition and an opportunity to submit a brief or a written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC43857 - Atlantic St. Heritage Associates, LLC v. Atlantic Realty Co. ("The defendants, Atlantic Realty Company, 200 Atlantic, LLC, 210 Atlantic, LLC, 252 Atlantic Street, LLC, and Safavieh Atlantic, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, Atlantic St. Heritage Associates, LLC, and denying their cross motion for summary judgment vis-a-vis the plaintiff's second amended complaint claiming a prescriptive easement over certain property at issue. As to the summary judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants claim that the court (1) lacked the authority to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because, in moving for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to address their special defenses, and (2) improperly determined that no genuine issues of material fact exist as to the plaintiff's prescriptive easement claim. We agree in part with the defendants' first claim that the court lacked the authority to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, such that we reverse the summary judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff and remand the case for further proceedings. Additionally, because it is sufficiently likely to arise on remand, we will address the defendants' second claim that the court incorrectly determined that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the plaintiff's prescriptive easement claim. As to the denial of their cross motion for summary judgment, the defendants claim that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is precluded from asserting both deeded and prescriptive easement rights simultaneously. This claim is untenable. Accordingly, insofar as the defendants appeal from the denial of their cross motion for summary judgment, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions