SC20547 - State v. Haughwout (Search & seizure; whether conviction for interfering with, and disobeying, officer violates fourth amendment where defendant argues that he was unlawfully detained; whether new crime exception to exclusionary rule applies; "The defendant, Austin Grant Haughwout, appeals from judgments of conviction on charges arising from, respectively, two separate incidents between him and various officers of the Clinton Police Department in July, 2015. The defendant claims that evidence of certain events during the first incident, which occurred in the parking lot of a local library on the night of July 19, 2015, should have been suppressed because those events were the result of an unconstitutional investigatory detention. The state responds to this claim by arguing that, in light of the totality of the circumstances presented, the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant had been engaged in criminal activity and that an investigatory detention was, therefore, constitutional under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21–22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). We disagree with the state and, accordingly, reverse the trial court's judgment of conviction as to the offenses relating to the incident that occurred on July 19, 2015. The defendant also claims that his conviction of two counts of assault of public safety personnel, specifically a peace officer, related to the second incident, which occurred inside of the Clinton Police Department on July 22, 2015, is infirm because (1) the state's evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) the trial court erred when instructing the jury. The state concedes that a new trial is required with respect to one of the assault charges due to instructional error but contends that the defendant's remaining claims lack merit. We agree with the state and, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's judgment of conviction related to the incident that occurred on July 22, 2015.")

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

AC43641 - Cooke v. Williams ("In this appeal, we address the applicability of Taylor v. Wallace, 184 Conn. App. 43, 194 A.3d 343 (2018), to an action alleging fraudulent and improper fee practices brought by a criminally convicted plaintiff against his former habeas attorney. The self-represented plaintiff, Ian T. Cooke, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, John R. Williams and John R. Williams and Associates, LLC, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court erred by dismissing as unripe (1) his legal malpractice claim by misapplying the justiciability bar articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994), and (2) his fraud claim pursuant to Heck for the same reasons. We agree with the plaintiff in part and accordingly reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Legal Malpractice & Attorney Discipline Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42828 - Allen v. Shoppes at Buckland Hills, LLC ("The plaintiff, Charles Allen, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in accordance with the jury verdict in favor of the defendants Shoppes at Buckland Hills, LLC (Buckland Hills), and AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC (AlliedBarton), the company that provided security services for Buckland Hills. The plaintiff claimed that he had suffered serious physical injuries when he attempted to stop what he believed was a serious crime at Buckland Hills, a shopping mall, while off duty from his position as a police officer with the town of East Granby. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) instructed the jury on superseding cause, (2) instructed the jury that General Statutes § 54-1f imposes a restriction, rather than an affirmative duty, on off duty police officers, and (3) failed to instruct the jury on duties owed by a possessor of land to invitees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC43984 - Warzecha v. USAA Casulty Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Keith Warzecha, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court, Noble, J., in favor of the defendant, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, on the plaintiff's two count amended complaint, which alleged breach of contract and sought a declaratory judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that he was not entitled to liability coverage under the terms of his insurance policy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC43276 - Mecartney v. Mecartney ("The plaintiff, David L. Mecartney, appeals from the orders of the trial court entered following a hearing on the amended postjudgment motion for contempt filed by the defendant, Caroline L. Mecartney, related to the plaintiff's failure to maintain adequate life insurance. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the trial court (1) erred in concluding that the insurance premium cost limitation of $3500 per year was eliminated when the court amended the required amount of insurance in 2008, (2) erred in issuing an 'injunction' without a finding of irreparable injury or lack of an adequate remedy at law, and (3) exceeded its equitable authority to fashion orders to protect the integrity of its earlier judgment. We agree with the trial court that the insurance cost limitation was eliminated when the total amount of required insurance was amended, and we conclude that because the plaintiff now has adequate insurance in place, his second and third claims are moot. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the trial court.")

AC43743 - Swanson v. Perez-Swanson ("The defendant, Marianella Perez-Swanson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her postjudgment motion to modify custody of the parties' children on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to enter further orders regarding the custody and visitation of the children under General Statutes § 46b-115l (a) (2) because the children had resided with the plaintiff, Ronald Swanson, in North Carolina for at least six consecutive months. Specifically, the defendant claims on appeal that the trial court erred by concluding that it no longer had jurisdiction to enter further orders because the court failed to consider two of the three statutory requirements: namely, whether the defendant maintains a significant relationship with the children and whether substantial evidence concerning the children was available in Connecticut. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42975 - State v. Green (Assault in first degree; "The defendant, Courtney Green, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to withdraw his guilty plea in connection with his 2009 judgment of conviction rendered after he pleaded guilty to three counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5). The defendant concedes that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This concession notwithstanding, the defendant, relying on State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764, 894 A.2d 963 (2006), requests that this court exercise its supervisory authority to treat this appeal as an authorized late appeal from his 2009 conviction. We decline to do so and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43866 - State v. Marshall (Motion to correct illegal sentence; "The self-represented defendant, Charles Marshall, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in denying his motion on the grounds that (1) he was properly sentenced as a persistent serious felony offender pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 53a-40 (j) and (2) the defendant's claims that he was improperly denied a probable cause hearing before trial and that his probations were revoked improperly were not the proper subjects of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. We disagree with the defendant's claims with respect to his sentencing as a persistent serious felony offender pursuant to § 53a-40 (j). Moreover, although we agree with the trial court's conclusions with respect to the defendant's probable cause hearing and probation claims, the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider them and, thus, should have dismissed the motion as to those claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to that court with direction to dismiss the claims over which it did not have jurisdiction.")

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

AC42537 - Carrasquillo v. Commissioner of Correction (Second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus; whether petitioner was adequately advised of plea offer; “The petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by concluding that he was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel during his underlying criminal trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC41911 - Stevenson v. Commissioner of Correction (“Specifically, the petitioner claims that the sentence of sixty years without the possibility of parole imposed after his underlying criminal trial is illegal because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and Connecticut constitutions, and that the habeas court could have determined that emerging science concerning juvenile brain development entitled him to a lesser sentence. We conclude that the habeas court improperly dismissed the habeas petition, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC44170 - Clark v. Waterford (Heart benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 7-433c; Heart and Hypertension Act; “The town claims the board improperly affirmed the decision of the commissioner by failing to apply the definition of the term member as provided in General Statutes § 7-425 (5) when determining whether the plaintiff was entitled to benefits under § 7-433c. The question on appeal is whether the plaintiff was a ‘uniformed member of a paid municipal fire department’ while he was employed by the town as a parttime firefighter. (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 7-433c. We affirm the decision of the board.”)

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

AC43543 - Nikola v. 2938 Fairfield, LLC ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant 2938 Fairfield, LLC (Fairfield), and the substitute defendant, Jeffrey Weiss, the executor of the estate of the original defendant, Naomi Drabkin, appeal from the deficiency judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Carol Nikola, the executor of the estate of the original plaintiff, Nikola Nikola. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court (1) incorrectly concluded that it was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from determining the amount of the deficiency judgment, and (2) improperly included in the deficiency judgment certain tax liens paid by Nikola Nikola. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44413 - In re Naomi (On appeal, she claims, for the first time, that the trial court violated her fundamental right to direct the health care decisions and religious upbringing of her child by allowing the commissioner to consent to Naomi’s nonemergency surgery over the respondent’s religious objection. The respondent unsuccessfully sought a stay of the trial court’s order, and the commissioner reported that, on January 13, 2021, Naomi successfully underwent the surgery. Because this court can no longer grant any practical relief to the parties and the case does not meet the criteria for the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine, we dismiss the appeal as moot.)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20439 - State v. Griffin (Murder; Search and seizure; Whether coercive interrogation rendered defendant's confession involuntary; Whether trial court properly deemed warrantless search justified under exigent circumstances doctrine; "On October 14, 2013, the victim, Nathaniel Bradley, was fatally shot by someone who was attempting to rob him. After receiving a tip from a confidential informant, the police focused their investigation on the defendant, Bobby Griffin. The police discovered the rifle used in the murder hidden in the attic of the defendant's residence. After a three hour and thirty-eight minute interrogation, the defendant confessed that he shot and killed the victim while attempting to rob him. The defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), criminal attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-134 (a) (2) and 53a-49 (a) (2), and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-134 (a) (2) and 53a-48 (a). The defendant also was convicted, following a trial to the court, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-217 (a) (1), as amended by No. 13-3, § 44, of the 2013 Public Acts (P.A. 13-3).

In this direct appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motions to suppress (1) the firearm and related evidence seized from his residence, which he claims were discovered as a result of an unlawful search, and (2) the incriminating statements he made during his interrogation at the police station, which he claims were involuntary. We disagree with the defendant's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• SC20439 - State v. Griffin Concurrence and Dissent
• SC20439 - State v. Griffin Second Concurrence

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 3, for July 20, 2021 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 337: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 290)
• Volume 337: Orders (Pages 910 - 910)
• Volume 337: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 205: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 763 - 872)
• Volume 205: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 206: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 137)
• Volume 206: 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

SC20490 - State v. Richards ("Murder; Sufficiency of evidence; Whether appellate court correctly concluded that evidence adduced at defendant's trial was sufficient to support his conviction of murder; "In this certified appeal, we must consider whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defendant, Jermain V. Richards, guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), despite the absence of evidence of the manner, means, place, cause, and time of the victim's death. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court's judgment of conviction. We now affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

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

AC42165 - Harris v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly denied his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of (1) appellate counsel and (2) prior habeas counsel. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.")

AC43961 - Cruz v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred by concluding that (1) Attorney William Gerace’s allegedly deficient representation during plea negotiations was not prejudicial, and (2) Attorney Dean Popkin did not render ineffective assistance with respect to the petitioner’s sentencing proceeding. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

AC40489 - State v. Arnold (Motion to correct illegal sentence; "The defendant, Earl Arnold, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, Fasano, J., denying in part his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims, for the first time, that his current sentence is illegal because the sentencing court relied on materially inaccurate information at his sentencing. We conclude that this claim is not reviewable and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40185 - State v. Lane (Assault in first degree; "The defendant, Ahmaad Jamal Lane, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) denying his motion for disqualification of the trial court judge and (2) admitting into evidence two photographs of the victim's injuries. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42039 - State v. Gordon (Larceny of elderly person by embezzlement in second degree; ""The defendant, Tamara Gordon, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of larceny of an elderly person by embezzlement in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 (1) and 53a-123 (a) (5). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly admitted into evidence a testimonial hearsay statement of the alleged victim, Robert Duke, Sr. (Duke), who died prior to trial, in violation of the defendant's right to confrontation under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, and (2) she was deprived of her due process rights when the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial impropriety by making substantive use of Duke's testimonial hearsay statement in her closing rebuttal argument. Because we conclude that the court improperly admitted Duke's testimonial statement for substantive purposes, in contravention of the defendant's right to confrontation, we do not need to reach the merits of the defendant's prosecutorial impropriety claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.")

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

AC43273 - Boyajian v. Planning & Zoning Commission (“This appeal requires us to consider whether the plaintiffs, who failed to appeal from a decision of the local zoning board of appeals to grant a variance; see General Statutes § 8-8 (b); may nevertheless collaterally attack the validity of that variance by opposing, before the local planning and zoning commission, a special permit application related to the property to which the variance attached. We conclude that the plaintiffs may not collaterally attack the validity of the variance.”)

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

AC43856 - Monts v. Board of Education ("The plaintiff, Helen Monts, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the defendant, the Board of Education of the City of Hartford. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by (1) failing to charge the jury on her claim of interference with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (2012), (2) admitting inadmissible hearsay into evidence, and (3) precluding evidence showing that she was disabled within the meaning of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43949 - Onthank v. Onthank ("The self-represented defendants, Pierce Onthank and Susan Onthank, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a bench trial, in favor of the self-represented plaintiff, John B. Onthank, on count one of his second revised complaint asserting a breach of contract claim. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in (1) rejecting their special defense asserting that the contract at issue — a promissory note — was unenforceable because the plaintiff did not provide them with a notice of default in strict compliance with the terms of the note and, thus, failed to satisfy a condition precedent to the enforcement thereof, and (2) awarding the plaintiff damages on the breach of contract claim because the court improperly declined to credit them $120,000 to account for the purported value of one million shares of stock transferred to the plaintiff. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40918 - Saunders v. KDFBS, LLC (Foreclosure by sale in favor of the plaintiff; “At trial, the plaintiff sought a judgment of foreclosure by sale and a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff’s mortgage had priority over the defendants’ mortgage. The defendants argued on appeal that the trial court erred in its determination that the mortgage held by the plaintiff (Saunders mortgage) on the underlying real property had priority over the mortgage held by the defendants (Davis mortgage) on the same property. This court summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment. Our Supreme Court granted certification and reversed the decision of this court and remanded the appeal to this court for further proceedings.”)

AC43542, AC43575 - LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd. Partnertship (“In these related appeals arising from a commercial foreclosure action, the defendants… claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the plaintiff had standing to foreclose the mortgage because it was not entitled to enforce the promissory note; in relying on the provisions of a regulatory agreement between Underwood and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conclude that Underwood had defaulted on the mortgage, and in calculating the amount of the debt owed to the plaintiff; in concluding that foreclosure was an equitable remedy in this case; in awarding monetary damages in addition to the judgment of strict foreclosure; and in awarding damages to the plaintiff under a theory of unjust enrichment. In Docket No. AC 43575, the city challenges the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had standing to foreclose on the ground that New England Savings Bank v. Bedford Realty Corp., 238 Conn. 745, 680 A.2d 301 (1996) (Bedford Realty), the Supreme Court case on which the trial court relied in so concluding, has been overruled sub silentio, or, in the alternative, was improperly decided. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• AC43542, AC43575 Appendix

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43619 - Villanueva v. Villanueva ("In this case arising from a dispute between two brothers who operated a landscaping business together, the defendant, Rafael Villanueva, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Javier Villanueva, and awarding the plaintiff damages in the amount of one half of the value of the business assets that the defendant maintained following the dissolution of that business. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in finding that (1) an implied partnership existed between the parties, (2) the plaintiff provided credible evidence of his damages, and (3) the plaintiff’s action was not barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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