AC39221 - Sempey v. Stamford Hospital ("The plaintiff, Merinda J. Sempey, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her case against the defendant, Stamford Hospital. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by (1) granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss count one of the amended substitute complaint, and (2) dismissing the matter in its entirety when the defendant had moved to dismiss only count one. Although we disagree that the court erred in granting the motion to dismiss count one of the amended substitute complaint, we agree that the court erred in dismissing counts two and three. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to counts two and three of the amended substitute complaint and remand the case for further proceedings; we affirm the judgment in all other respects.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40234 - State v. Swilling (Kidnapping in first degree; home invasion; assault in second degree; "The defendant, Ricardo Swilling, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2) (A), home invasion in violation of General Statutes § 53a-100aa (a) (2), and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2). Additionally, following the defendant's pleas of nolo contendere, the defendant was convicted of two counts of being a persistent dangerous felony offender in violation of General Statutes § 53a-40 (a) (1), as alleged in part B informations that were related to the kidnapping and home invasion charges. The defendant claims that (1) the trial court violated his due process right to a fair and impartial trial by questioning two witnesses during the state's case-in-chief, (2) the court improperly permitted the victim to make an in-court identification of him absent a showing that she previously had made a nonsuggestive out-of-court identification of him, (3) the court improperly admitted evidence of his prior felony convictions, (4) the court improperly admitted a recording of a 911 call made by the victim, and (5) the cumulative effect of the court's errors deprived him of his right to a fair and impartial trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40238 - State v. Small (Murder; burglary in first degree; larceny in third degree; larceny in fourth degree; stealing firearm; criminal possession of firearm; sale of narcotics; possession of narcotics; "The defendant, Carl Small, was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (2), larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124 (a) (1), larceny in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125 (a), stealing a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-212, criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1), sale of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a), and possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of criminal gangs; (2) he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial by prosecutorial improprieties; and (3) the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC39441 - Humble v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Specifically, the petitioner claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to adequately investigate exculpatory evidence, and (2) misadvising him to plead guilty to murder. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denyingthe petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")

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

Wednesday, April 4th

• Torrington Law Library will be open at 1:00 p.m.

Thursday, April 5th

• Middletown Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.
• New Britain Law Library will be closed at 3:30 p.m.
  

Friday, April 6th

• New Britain Law Library will be closed at 1:00 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 39, for March 27, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 177 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 209 - 210
• Volume 179 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 609 - 614
• Volume 179 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 619 - 620
• Volume 179 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 623 - 624
• Volume 179 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 739 - 740
• Volume 328: Orders (Pages 913 - 914)
• Volume 328: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 180: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 371 - 605)
• Volume 180: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
• Volume 180: 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

SC20029, SC20040 - Keeley v. Ayala (Elections; primaries; action brought by aggrieved candidate pursuant to statute (§ 9-329a) to challenge absentee balloting process during special primary and seeking order directing new special primary; reservation of questions of law; appeal from trial court's judgment; "This appeal requires us to interpret and apply various statutory provisions that govern the casting of absentee ballots in a municipal primary election. On November 14, 2017, a special primary was held in the city of Bridgeport to nominate candidates from the Democratic party to run in the general election for two seats on the Bridgeport City Council. After the results of the Democratic special primary were determined, the plaintiff, Robert T. Keeley, Jr., a losing candidate, challenged them pursuant to General Statutes § 9-329a, claiming that several improprieties in the absentee balloting process had undermined the reliability of the outcome. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court agreed with three of the plaintiff's claims of impropriety and ordered, as a remedy, that a new special primary be held. The defendants, a winning candidate and certain city officials involved in the election process (city defendants), thereafter filed with the trial court a reservation of four questions of law, which that court certified and transmitted to this court for review pursuant to General Statutes § 9-325. The defendants also filed an appeal raising the same issues as those raised in the certified questions. The defendants claim that the trial court improperly concluded that (1) General Statutes § 9-140b (a) prohibits a party official or candidate from directing a police officer to retrieve absentee ballots from electors and to deliver them to the town clerk, (2) certain absentee ballots were not "mailed," as contemplated by § 9-140b (c), and (3) supervised absentee balloting at a certain nursing home did not comply with the statutory provisions governing that process. The defendants also claim generally that the trial court improperly allocated the burden of proof applicable to the proceedings, effectively placing on them the burden of disproving the plaintiff's allegations. We agree with the defendants' third claim but disagree with their remaining claims. Because the number of absentee ballots invalidated as a result of our disposition of the issues remains sufficiently high to place the reliability of the November 14, 2017 special primary results seriously in doubt, we affirm the judgment of the trial court ordering a new special primary.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions

Monday, March 26th

• Rockville Law Library is closed.

Friday, March 30th

• All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries will be closed in observance of Good Friday.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC39371 - Metropolitan District v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ("In this civil action, the plaintiff, The Metropolitan District, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC38910 - Ryan v. Cassella ("This is a case about a misspelled last name. The defendant, Paul A. Cassella, appeals from the denial of his motion to open the judgment of the trial court, following the granting of a motion to correct the default judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, John Ryan, in the amount of $8429.42. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly granted the motion to correct filed by the plaintiff and (2) abused its discretion in denying his motion to open. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39668 - Micek-Holt v. Papageorge ("This appeal arises from two cases, which were consolidated for trial, involving a contract for the purchase of certain real property located in Thompson. Mary Papageorge and George Papageorge appeal from the judgments of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in favor of Andrea Micek-Holt, executrix of the estate of Edward W. Micek. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• AC39668 Appendix - Micek-Holt v. Papageorge

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38615 - Nassra v Nassra ("This appeal arises from an action in which a nonparty, N.J. Sarno and Company, LLC (N.J. Sarno), filed a motion for order of payment of court-ordered visitation supervisor fees in connection with the underlying dissolution action between the plaintiff and the defendant, George A. Nassra. After the court held a hearing on the motion, it rendered judgment for N.J. Sarno, finding the parties jointly and severally liable in the amount of $8785. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court: (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action because N.J. Sarno lacked standing; (2) improperly determined that an oral contract existed between N.J. Sarno and the defendant;2 (3) improperly determined that N.J. Sarno’s contract claim was not time barred by the three year statute of limitations provided by General Statutes § 52-581 (a); and (4) improperly rendered judgment in favor of N.J. Sarno after the parties had complied with the terms of the separation agreement. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC39074 - Bueno v. Firgeleski ("'A covenant that is a servitude "runs with the land".' 1 Restatement (Third), Property, Servitudes § 1.3 (1), p. 23 (2000). 'When a change has taken place since the creation of a servitude that makes it impossible as a practical matter to accomplish the purpose for which the servitude was created, a court may modify the servitude to permit the purpose to be accomplished. If modification is not practicable, or would not be effective, a court may terminate the servitude.' 2 Restatement (Third), Property, Servitudes § 7.10 (1), p. 394 (2000).

This declaratory judgment action concerns the viability of a restrictive covenant (restriction) contained in a 1941 committee deed conveying 1.544 acres of a thirty acre farm in Darien that was once owned by Wilbur N. Waterbury (Waterbury land). The plaintiffs, Luz E. Bueno and Edward R. den Dooven, own 1.38 acres of the Waterbury land. The defendants, Michael Firgeleski, Allison Firgeleski, Pole M. Chan, Jessica M. Chan, Richard B. Myers, Margaret Q. Myers, Scott J. Cronin, and Eileen M. Cronin (collectively, Briar Brae defendants), and Kenneth S. Martin and Rachel P. Martin (Martins), own lots that were created from a portion of the remainder of the thirty acres of the Waterbury land and are adjacent to the plaintiffs’ property. The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring the restriction void and unenforceable to permit the sale of a portion of their property. In its judgment, the court declared unenforceable the portion of the restriction that limits the plaintiffs’ use of their property to one dwelling house, prohibits the erection of any building within twenty-five feet of the southern boundary, and requires approval of the grantor before erecting a structure on the property.

The defendants appealed, claiming that three of the court’s factual findings are erroneous in that they are not supported by the evidence. With respect to the court’s legal conclusions, the defendants claim that the court (1) improperly looked beyond the four corners of the deeds and (2) misapplied the facts of the present case to Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., 125 Conn. 373, 5 A.2d 700 (1939) (restriction’s purpose frustrated) and Shippan Point Assn., Inc. v. McManus, 34 Conn. App. 209, 215, 641 A.2d 144 (same), cert. denied, 229 Conn. 923, 642 A.2d 1215 (1994). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law

AC40398 - State v. Smith (Motion to correct illegal sentence; kidnapping in first degree; felony murder; robbery in first degree; manslaughter in first degree; "The defendant, Jeffrey Smith, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion. Specifically, the defendant claims that his sentence violates his fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy, which is applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. The defendant also argues that the principles our Supreme Court established in State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242, 61 A.3d 1084 (2013), and State v. Miranda, 317 Conn. 741, 120 A.3d 490 (2015), should be applied retroactively to the circumstances of his case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38647 - State v. Hudson (Conspiracy to commit assault in first degree; "The defendant, Anthony Hudson, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered against him following a jury trial on the charge of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-59 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We disagree, and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39335 - State v. Louis D. (Criminal possession of firearm; criminal violation of protective order; "The defendant, Louis D., appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of three counts of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223 (a) and one count of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Supp. 2014) § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A) arising out of three separate informations. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) consolidated the three informations for trial, and (2) denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

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

AC39238 - Silver v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance; plea agreement; credibility of witnesses; " The dispositive issue is whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied certification, and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal.")

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

AC39298 - Binkowski v. Board of Education (Negligence; "The plaintiff, Amy Binkowski, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants Yolanda Jones-Generette and Linda O'Brien following the granting of their motion to strike her third revised complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that her complaint failed, as a matter of law, to allege facts that would bring it within the intentional tort exception to the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., as set forth in General Statutes § 31-293a. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39260 - McCarroll v. East Haven (Negligence; "This personal injury action concerns the injuries the minor plaintiff, Mason McCarroll (child), sustained when he fell from a playscape he was climbing on at an elementary school playground. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered when it granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, the town of East Haven. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that, in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court improperly concluded that their claims were barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC39641 - Traylor v. Gambrell ("The plaintiff, Sylvester Traylor, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Cathy Gambrell, Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency (agency), the town of Waterford, Ryan Ryan Deluca LLP, and Maciej A. Piatkowski. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his claims of spoliation of evidence and in favor of the agency on his claim of unfair trade practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and that the court erred in striking his CUTPA claim against Ryan Ryan Deluca LLP.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

Law Library Services is offering a course on effective motion drafting at the Danbury J.D. courthouse: Practical Skills & Resources for Drafting Effective Motions in Connecticut.

Well drafted motions and pleadings can be powerful and persuasive tools. Whether you are newly admitted or an experienced practitioner, strong legal drafting skills are essential to the effective practice of law.

• Explore practical and invaluable resources and services available through the courthouse law libraries
• Enhance your motion practice skills
• Identify sources of sample forms to assist you in drafting persuasive motions and pleadings
• Increase your knowledge and understanding of the courthouse law library collections, both print and electronic

The course will be held at the Danbury Superior Court on Monday, April 30, 2018 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. To RSVP, email your name and contact information to lawlibraryservices@jud.ct.gov

Please see the flyer for more information, including the MCLE Notice.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research

Wednesday, March 21st

• Hartford Law Library will close at 1:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library will be closed.
• Danbury Law Library will be closed.

Thursday, March 22nd

• Putnam Law Library will be closed.
  

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 38, for March 20, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 178 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 365 - 370
• Volume 328: Orders (Pages 912 - 913)
• Volume 328: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 180: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 250 - 371)
• Volume 180: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 180: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports

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

The Connecticut General Assembly has posted the 2018 Supplement to the General Statutes of Connecticut. The supplement codifies the Public Acts that were enacted by the General Assembly in 2017 and in effect on January 1, 2017. There is also an index provided by the Legislative Commissioners' Office.

The 2018 Supplement is intended to be used with the 2017 revision of the statutes. Law Library Services has created multiple finding aids to assist researchers with locating statutes, including a written guide on How to Find Connecticut Statutes Online, and two video tutorials on Searching and Browsing Connecticut Statutes Online.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• New Legislation

AC39087 - Bassford v. Bassford (Probate appeal; "The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the judgments of the trial court, dismissing their consolidated appeals from the Court of Probate for the district of Middletown. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred as a matter of law by concluding that the decedent, an involuntarily conserved person, (1) was competent (a) to revoke a certain trust he had settled and (b) to receive and retain interest in real property, (2) had the testamentary capacity to execute a will, and (3) was not under the undue influence of the defendant . . . We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• AC39087 Appendix - Bassford v. Bassford

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