AC 47341 - Bay Advance, LLC v. Halajian (“The self-represented defendant, Barry Stuart Halajian, doing business as Industrial Electric Company, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement filed by the plaintiff, Bay Advance, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly determined that the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46314 - Maefair Health Care Center, Inc. v. Noka ("The plaintiff, Maefair Health Care Center, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application for a prejudgment remedy filed against Susan Noka, the conservator of the person and estate of Patricia N. Erts. On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court incorrectly concluded that General Statutes § 52-278a did not permit the plaintiff to attach the decedent's interest in certain real property. We agree and reverse the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Probate Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC48111 - Vermont Aerospace Industries, LLC v. Schwoeri (“The plaintiff, Vermont Aerospace Industries, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application to ‘‘partially vacate, correct, and/or modify’’ an arbitration award and granting the motion for order confirming that award filed by the defendant, Lawrence W. Schwoeri. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied its application and granted the defendant’s motion for order because the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law and violated public policy. The plaintiff alternatively contends that the court improperly declined to modify the manner in which the damages awarded to the defendant must be paid. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• AC48111 Appendix - Vermont Aerospace Industries, LLC v. Schwoeri

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Contract Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47026- Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc. "The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court limiting his recovery of costs pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72 to statutory, taxable costs. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that costs recoverable under § 31-72 are limited to statutory, taxable costs rather than all reasonable and necessary costs. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant alleging breach of contract, a violation of General Statutes §§ 31-71b and 31-72 for failure to timely pay wages, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of the termination of his employment with the defendant. This court thereafter affirmed the judgment of the trial court.”

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47154- Cruz v. Waterbury "The plaintiff, Emmanuel Cruz, a former Waterbury police officer whose employment was terminated after he suffered a work-related injury that rendered him unable to return to full-time police work, brought the underlying combined administrative appeal and breach of contract action against the defendants, the city of Waterbury (city) and the Retirement Board of the City of Waterbury (board), challenging the denial of his application for a disability pension. The plaintiff now appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the trial court (1) committed plain error by failing to consider and analyze General Statutes § 31-71f (a), despite the parties' failure to raise that statute in their arguments before the court, (2) improperly denied, as to the board, and dismissed, as to the city, count one of his complaint asserting an administrative appeal from the board's denial of his application for disability retirement and pension benefits, and (3) improperly denied, as to the city, and dismissed, as to the board, count two of his complaint asserting a breach of the collective bargaining agreement that governed the terms of his employment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court."

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

AC47129 - Curto v. Hartmann (“The defendants, Robert D. Hartmann, Sr. (Hartmann), and HSGCHG Investments, LLC (HSGCHG), appeal, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Angelo Curto, on his claims of fraud and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42- 110a et seq. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court (1) erred in tolling the statutes of limitations governing the plaintiff’s claims and (2) abused its discretion in awarding excessive punitive damages to the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court correctly determined that § 52-595 tolled the statutes of limitations governing the plaintiff’s fraud and CUTPA claims, as sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that the defendants intentionally concealed from the plaintiff the facts necessary to establish his claims and, due to the defendants’ conduct in repeatedly and falsely representing to the plaintiff that he would be repaid, the plaintiff did not become aware of his causes of action until almost two years after the defendant H had knowingly misappropriated the loaned funds.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20829 - State v. Foster ("The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether, for purposes of an equal protection challenge, an insanity acquittee who is subject to a petition under General Statutes § 17a-593 for continued commitment to the custody of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board) following the expiration of the maximum period of commitment is similarly situated to a mentally ill prison inmate who is the subject of a petition for civil commitment pursuant to General Statutes §§ 17a-498 (c) and 17a-515 (civilly committed inmate). We conclude that an insanity acquittee who is subject to a petition for continued commitment, regardless of his clinical progress, is not similarly situated to a civilly committed inmate for purposes of the equal protection guarantees under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution.

The acquittee, Franklin Foster, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting the state's petition to extend his commitment to the custody of the board. See State v. Foster, 217 Conn. App. 476, 478, 506, 289 A.3d 191 (2023). On appeal, the acquittee claims, among other things, that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that (1) as an insanity acquittee, he was not similarly situated to a civilly committed inmate for purposes of a challenge to § 17a-593 under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, and (2) the trial court's finding, pursuant to § 17a-593 (c), that he was mentally ill and dangerous was supported by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC20829 Concurrence - State v. Foster

SC21023 - State v. Guild ("This appeal requires us to consider whether the release of an insanity acquittee from the custody of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board) moots his pending appeal challenging the trial court's order extending his commitment to the board that was issued on July 11, 2023 (2023 commitment order). In this appeal, the acquittee, Stephen Guild, has raised several factual and constitutional challenges to his continued commitment under General Statutes § 17a-593 (c). While this appeal was pending, on December 2, 2024, the state filed a new petition that would have extended the acquittee's commitment to the custody of the board beyond the acquittee's discharge date of March 20, 2025 (2024 petition). After conducting a hearing on the 2024 petition pursuant to § 17a-593 (d), the board filed a report dated January 22, 2025, in which it found that the acquittee was no longer a danger to himself or others as to require supervision by the board and recommended that the trial court deny the state's petition for further commitment. The state did not challenge the board's finding, and it withdrew the 2024 petition, which resulted in the acquittee's discharge from the custody of the board on March 20, 2025.

These events, which occurred during the pendency of this appeal, have rendered this appeal moot. Put simply, given that the acquittee has been released from the custody of the board on March 20, 2025, we cannot grant him any practical relief from the 2023 commitment order. Further, the acquittee has not established that there are any legally cognizable collateral consequences resulting from the 2023 commitment order, or that this is a matter that is capable of repetition, yet evading review. The acquittee was, however, precluded from fully litigating the correctness of the 2023 commitment order through no fault of his own, insofar as it was rendered moot when the state withdrew the 2024 petition. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal but vacate the 2023 commitment order.")

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

AC47522 - United Cleaning & Restoration, LLC v. Koskerides (Breach of contract; “The defendants claim that the court made clearly erroneous factual findings in connection with its conclusions that the plaintiff had proved its breach of contract claim and that the defendants had failed to prove their breach of contract claim, and improperly calculated the plaintiff’s award of attorney’s fees. We disagree with the defendants’ first claim and, therefore, affirm the judgment in the plaintiff’s favor on its breach of contract claim and on the defendants’ breach of contract counterclaim. Because the court may have improperly awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees that the plaintiff was not authorized to receive under the parties’ contract, we conclude that we must vacate the award of attorney’s fees and remand the case for a new hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees consistent with this opinion.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC21072 - Clinton v. Aspinwall (Breach of contract; “The defendants’ principal claim on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly interpreting an exculpatory clause in CCP’s operating agreement as imposing affirmative duties on the defendants and instructing the jury in accordance with that flawed interpretation. They also claim that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the plaintiff’s expert, Kenneth Pia, to testify about CCP’s capital reserve. We agree with the defendants on their first claim but disagree with them on their second claim. Because the error on their first claim was not harmless, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.”)

• Concurrence

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

AC47509 - Faryniarz v. Ramirez ("Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford. The plaintiff judgment creditor appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the defendant judgment debtor’s motion to exempt from execution certain accounts at a financial institution containing retirement funds. We conclude that, pursuant to § 52-367b (i), the plaintiff had seven days from the rendering of the court’s March 8, 2024 order to appeal to this court and, therefore, the plaintiff’s appeal on April 1, 2024, was not timely filed. Accordingly, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.")

AC47514 - Pearlman v. Gervolino ("The plaintiff landlord appealed from the trial court’s judgment with respect to its award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant tenant on the count of his counterclaim alleging violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) in connection with the plaintiff’s handling of his security deposit. In calculating the defendant’s award of attorney’s fees, however, the court included in its award all the costs and fees set forth in the defendant’s affidavit. Because the court did not limit its award of attorney’s fees to those fees incurred on the defendant’s CUTPA claim, but, rather, expressly awarded the defendant all ‘‘attorney’s fees and [costs incurred] in the defense of the plaintiff’s action and the prosecution of his counterclaims,’’ we conclude that the court abused its discretion in calculating the amount of attorney’s fees and costs the defendant was entitled to recover under CUTPA. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new hearing on the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.")

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

AC47415 - SMDV 1, LLC v. 459-461 Pacific Street, LLC (“This appeal arises from an action brought by the plaintiff, SMDV 1, LLC, against the defendants, 459-461 Pacific Street, LLC (Pacific Street), and Frank Steinegger, related to Pacific Street’s notice of termination of a contract for the sale and purchase of real property known as 459-461 Pacific Street in Stamford (property). The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court correctly determined that the contract was rendered unenforceable by the termination of a separate ground lease and purchase agreement between two different entities. After our review of the language of the contract, we conclude that the trial court’s determination cannot stand. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants following a court trial and remand this case for further proceedings.”)

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

AC47692- Gancsos v. Israel "This appeal arises from a dispute between owners of abutting properties located in Cheshire. The defendants, Lior Israel and Perla Israel, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Gancsos, in the plaintiff's action alleging trespass and breach of contract. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) found that the defendants trespassed on the plaintiff's property and (2) ordered injunctive relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court."

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

AC47029 - Fischer v. M&T Bank, N.A. (“The plaintiff, Alan Fischer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action for, inter alia, breach of contract against the defendants, M&T Bank, N.A. (M&T Bank), formerly known as People’s United Bank, N.A. (People’s United), and two former bank employees, Kenneth Nuzzolo and Virgilio Lopez, Jr. On appeal, the plaintiff raises a number of claims related to the court’s dismissal of his action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.”)

AC46784 - Waterbury v. Watertown (“The defendant, the town of Watertown, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiff, the city of Waterbury. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that, in the absence of a contractual agreement, General Statutes §§ 7-2391 and 7-2552 authorize the plaintiff to set the rates it charges properties located in the defendant municipality for the continued use of its water and sewer services, (2) concluded that those statutes impliedly authorize the plaintiff to sue the defendant to collect unpaid water and sewer service charges incurred by those properties, and (3) found the plaintiff’s water and sewer service rates to be reasonable and equitable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46668 - Hadji v. Snow (“In this action for breach of contract, the defendants Patrick T. Snow, a real estate developer, and six limited liability companies owned and/or managed by Snow (defendant companies) appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Andreas S. Hadji, on count one of this action alleging breach of a written agreement, dated August 30, 2018 (agreement), that was entered into between the plaintiff and Snow, individually and on behalf of the defendant companies, and with respect to six special defenses and a counterclaim filed by the defendants. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) rejected their second special defense, in which they alleged, inter alia, that Snow did not have apparent authority to enter into the agreement on behalf of the defendant Finishers Court, LLC (Finishers Court), (2) determined that there was proper consideration to support the agreement as to each of the defendant companies, (3) rejected their contention that the interest charged under the agreement was unconscionable, (4) determined that the written agreement constituted the entire agreement between the parties, and (5) calculated damages by double counting the base amount of damages. We agree with the defendants’ last claim only and reverse the judgment in part.)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47490 - Lombardi v. Westport (“The plaintiff, Kenneth Lombardi, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the town of Westport. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim alleging that the defendant breached the terms of a pension plan. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47140 - Ready v. New Canaan (“The plaintiffs, Scott Ready and Veronica Ready, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, the town of New Canaan, as to the plaintiffs’ complaint alleging breach of contract. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claim sounded in tort rather than in breach of contract and, therefore, was barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity. We reverse the judgment of the court.”)

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

AC47221 - Fezollari v. Jauzovic (“On appeal, the defendant claims that, at the hearing in damages, the court (1) improperly denied her the opportunity to present evidence to mitigate damages as provided for in Practice Book §§ 17- 34 (a) and 17-40 and (2) used an incorrect measure of damages in calculating the damages award. We agree with the defendant as to both claims and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the court as to the award of damages and remand the case for a new hearing in damages.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47261 - Smith v. H. Pearce Real Estate Co. (“In this appeal from the judgments in two consolidated actions arising from an asset purchase agreement, the plaintiffs in the first action, DeForest W. Smith and DeForest Industries, Inc. (DII), challenge the judgments of the trial court, rendered after a court trial. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) found that the defendant H. Pearce Real Estate Company, Inc. (Pearce) was entitled to a setoff for the overpayment of a commission that it previously had paid to Smith, (2) concluded that Smith was personally liable to Pearce for the setoff, and (3) rejected their claim that certain lease renewals were excluded from its sale of assets to Pearce. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47098 - Schneider v. Federman (“The defendant, Martha Federman, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to open the default judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Jeremiah T. Schneider III and Sara Papasidero. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied that motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44253, AC44254 - Pryor v. Brignole (“These appeals involve a novel issue of statutory interpretation regarding a legal standard for which neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history provides clear resolution. It thus falls to this court to divine, as best we can, the proper construction of that statutory standard, ever mindful that it is the prerogative of our General Assembly to modify, alter, and amend the laws of this state.

In these related appeals, the defendants, Timothy Brignole and the law firm of Brignole, Bush & Lewis, LLC (law firm), appeal from the judgments of the trial court denying their special motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute, General Statutes § 52-196a, in this breach of contract action brought by the self-represented plaintiff, J. Xavier Pryor. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly construed § 52-196a (e) (3) to require a moving party, as part of its initial burden under the first prong of that statute, to admit to engaging in the conduct alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint. In response, the plaintiff argues that the alleged conduct did not involve a matter of public concern, as required by § 52- 196a (e) (3), and that the defendants waived their ability to file special motions to dismiss because those motions were untimely. We agree with the defendants that the court improperly interpreted § 52-196a (e) (3) and, accordingly, reverse the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions