The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 44, for April 30, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 331: Connecticut Reports (Pages 524 - 561)
• Volume 331: Orders (Pages 919 - 922)
• Volume 331: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 189: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 477 - 608)
• Volume 189: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 906)
• Volume 189: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC41039 - Leon v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that (1) that conduct violated his right to client autonomy under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, and (2) the habeas court improperly determined that the petitioner had not been denied the effective assistance of counsel by that conduct. We conclude that the former was not pleaded or decided by the habeas court and therefore is not properly before this court. With respect to the latter, the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails, as he did not establish prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC40984 - Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that his prior habeas attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to allege that his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing (1) to consult with a forensic pathologist to reconstruct the crime scene, and (2) to object to the admission into evidence of certain witness statements. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC41129 - Malpeso v. Malpeso ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the plaintiff, Charlotte Malpeso, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered on remand from this court, granting motions to modify filed by the defendant, Pasquale Malpeso, and entering modified financial orders. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that: (1) the court erred in granting the defendant's motion to modify filed on January 25, 2012, because the court (a) improperly determined that the defendant's payment of the college expenses of the parties' children constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification of alimony and (b) failed to consider the totality of the parties' respective financial circumstances; (2) the court erred in granting the defendant's motion to modify filed on October 10, 2014, as amended, because the court (a) made a clearly erroneous factual finding regarding the defendant's health and engaged in speculation by considering the defendant's risk of developing future medical conditions, and (b) failed to consider the totality of the parties' respective financial circumstances; and (3) the court erred in modifying alimony retroactively. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40622, AC40765 - Winthrop v. Winthrop ("The defendant, Matthew Winthrop, appeals, and the plaintiff, Lori K. Winthrop, cross appeals, from the order of the trial court denying the plaintiff's postjudgment motion for contempt. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly found that his 'earned income,' for the purpose of calculating the amount of additional alimony that he owed the plaintiff in 2016, was the amount shown on his W-2 form. The plaintiff contends in her cross appeal that, although the court correctly determined that the defendant's earned income was the figure provided on his W-2 form, it failed to calculate the additional alimony owed in 2016 in accordance with the parties' separation agreement (agreement). We affirm the judgment as to the defendant's appeal and, as to the plaintiff's cross appeal, we reverse the judgment only with respect to the court's calculation of the alimony amount owed by the defendant in 2016.")

AC41352 - Merkel v. Hill ("The defendant, Marlene Baltimore Hill, appeals from the postjudgment order of the trial court modifying the existing orders governing the parental access plan and the custody rights of the self-represented plaintiff, Gordon Merkel, with respect to the parties' minor child. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court's modification of the existing custody order violated her right to procedural due process under the United States constitution, and that the court abused its discretion by adopting the recommendations contained in a stale family relations report to modify both the existing custody and parental access plan orders. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41407 - Seale v. GeoQuest, Inc. (Negligence; "The plaintiff, Daniel C. Seale, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a bench trial, rendered in favor of the defendant, GeoQuest, Inc. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the court properly determined that the defendant did not violate the standard of care. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC40325 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Grogins ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants, David Grogins, executor of the estate of Anna S. Grogins, and David Grogins and Malcolm L. Grogins, trustees of the Susan Grogins Trust, appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust. On appeal, the defendants argue that the court abused its discretion in denying their motion to open because the court improperly applied the procedural requirements set forth in General Statutes § 52-212 and, in so doing, erroneously found that there was no good cause to open the judgment of strict foreclosure. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40784 - Praisner v. State ("The defendant, the state of Connecticut, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion for summary judgment in this indemnification action brought by the plaintiff, Martin J. Praisner, Jr., pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53-39a. On appeal, the state contends that the court improperly concluded that the action was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41553 - Liberty Transportation, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Liberty Transportation, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company. The dispositive issue in the appeal is whether the court properly concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC41553 Appendix - Liberty Transportation, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co.

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

Wednesday, April 24th

• Waterbury Law Library is closed from 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Thursday, April 25th

• Middletown Law Library is closed.

Friday, April 26th

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library will open at 10:00 a.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC19987 - Newland v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas Corpus; Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72; “The principal issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner, who was denied counsel at his criminal trial and failed to raise a claim related to that deprivation either at trial or on direct appeal, is required to demonstrate actual prejudice to overcome the respondent’s claim of procedural default. We conclude that, for purposes of procedural default, after the petitioner has established good cause for failing to raise his claim that he was completely deprived of his right to counsel, prejudice is presumed. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 43, for April 23, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 331: Connecticut Reports (Pages 436 - 523)
• Volume 331: Orders (Pages 917 - 919)
• Volume 331: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 189: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 304 - 476)
• Volume 189: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Connecticut Practice Book Amendments

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

Wondering if there is a Connecticut treatise on administrative law? Looking for Connecticut-specific collection law forms?

The Connecticut Treatise Index is a comprehensive listing of contemporary Connecticut legal treatises and form books, organized into useful subject headings. It has been recently updated to include all Connecticut materials as of April 2019.

Some examples of newly released or revised Connecticut law books you'll find in the index:

• A Practical Guide to Divorce in Connecticut, edited by Armata et al
• Connecticut Foreclosures 9th, by Caron & Milne
• Encyclopedia of Connecticut Causes of Action 2019 edition, by Taylor & Kirsch

You can contact one of our twelve law libraries located throughout the state with questions about any of the materials listed in the index.

• Posted in:
• FAQ,
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• New in the Libraries

AC40933 - Bree v. Commissioner of Correction (" On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in ruling that his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing (1) to consult with and to present testimony from an expert in audio-video forensics to challenge the reliability of closed-circuit television surveillance video evidence used by the state to identify him as the perpetrator in one of the robberies; (2) to timely object to and move to strike the nonresponsive testimony of the petitioner’s alleged accomplice, Gabriel Santiago, identifying the petitioner’s photograph in a photographic array as that of a perpetrator of another of the underlying robberies; and (3) to present the testimony of the petitioner’s stepfather, Ronald Riebling, to bolster exculpatory testimony from his wife, Sue Riebling, the petitioner’s mother. We disagree with the petitioner’s claims and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

AC40102 - American Institute for Neuro-Integrative Development, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission ("The plaintiff, American Institute for Neuro-Integrative Development, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Town Plan & Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield (commission), in which the commission denied the plaintiff's request for a special exception pursuant to § 27.0 of the Fairfield Zoning Regulations (regulations). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred when it concluded that the commission properly denied the plaintiff's special exception application on the basis of (1) concerns about increased off-site traffic, and (2) the plaintiff's inability to identify specific tenants that would occupy the proposed office spaces. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41209 - Watson v. Zoning Board of Appeals ("The plaintiff, Cindy Watson, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing her appeal from the decision of the defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Glastonbury (board), in which the board affirmed the decision of the defendant zoning enforcement officer, Peter R. Carey, declining to approve the plaintiff's application for permission to conduct a customary home occupation from a home office within her residence. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Superior Court erred in upholding the decision of the board and dismissing her appeal because the court improperly concluded that (1) the plaintiff needed to prove that her home occupation was 'customary,' in that other people in Glastonbury also were managing off-site companies from a home office, in addition to establishing that it complied with the specific standards set forth in § 7.1 (b) (2) (a) of the Glastonbury Building Zone Regulations (regulations), and (2) the determining factor of whether a specific customary home occupation is allowed under the regulations is by a consideration of the nature of the business to which the home occupation relates and whether any part of that business is conducted off-site. We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.")

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

AC41304 - Barbabosa v. Board of Education ("In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff, Dianna Barbabosa, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the Board of Education of the Town of Manchester, on the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that the defendant had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability and had failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to a common essential element of both of her claims, namely, whether the plaintiff could perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40081 - Benistar Employer Services Trust Co. v. Benincasa ("The plaintiffs, Benistar Employer Services Trust Company (BESTCO) and Benistar Admin Services, Inc. (BASI), appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their application to vacate and granting a motion to confirm an arbitration award in favor of the defendants, James J. Benincasa and Jody L. Benincasa. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly denied the application to vacate the arbitration award because the award was (1) not timely issued, (2) predicated on a manifest disregard of the law, (3) not mutual, final and definite, and (4) in violation of public policy. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40166 - Nova Benefit Plans, LLC v. Mortgages Unlimited, Inc. ("The plaintiffs, Nova Benefit Plans, LLC, for the Grist Mill Trust, Benistar 419 Plan Services, Inc., for Benistar 419 Plan and Trust, Benistar Admin Services, Inc., and Daniel Carpenter appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their application to vacate and confirming an arbitration award in favor of the defendants, James J. Benincasa, Jody L. Benincasa, and Mortgages Unlimited, Inc. The plaintiffs claim on appeal that the trial court improperly confirmed the award that was predicated on a prior related arbitration award, which, the plaintiffs argue, constituted a manifest disregard of the law. This court determined in Benistar Employer Services Trust Co. v. Benincasa, 189 Conn. App. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2019), also released today, that the prior arbitration award did not constitute a manifest disregard of the law. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40459 - Bozelko v. Statewide Construction, Inc. (Quiet title; "The plaintiff, Ronald F. Bozelko, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a trial to the court, in favor of the defendants, Statewide Construction, Inc., and Robert Pesapane, in an action to quiet title under General Statutes § 47-31. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court's conclusions with respect to his quiet title claim are improper. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC39650 - LaBorne v. LaBorne ("The plaintiff, Riitta LaBorne, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following a postdissolution hearing. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) failing to value the parties' assets as of the date of the dissolution, (2) basing its alimony orders on the parties' gross income, rather than net income, and (3) concluding that the defendant, John C. LaBorne, was permitted to withdraw funds from his retirement account for the purpose of paying alimony. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42118 - Margarita O. v. Fernando I. ("The self-represented defendant, Fernando I., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application of the plaintiff, Margarita O., for relief from abuse and issuing a restraining order pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-15.The defendant claims that the court erroneously (1) determined that he had subjected the plaintiff to a recent pattern of threatening, and (2) ordered the defendant to stay 100 yards away from the plaintiff except 'when both children are present.' We conclude that there was no evidence to support the court's order requiring the defendant to 'stay 100 yards away from the [plaintiff]' with an exception 'for the 100 yard stay away when both children are present.' Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the court as to the 'stay 100 yards away' order and remand the case for a new hearing with respect to any order of protection, if proven necessary by the plaintiff, in situations where the defendant seeks interaction with his children and the plaintiff is present. We otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41187 - Natasha B. v. Dept. of Children & Families (Administrative appeal; appeal from decision of hearing officer of defendant Department of Children and Families, who upheld department's decision to substantiate allegations of physical abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect by plaintiff against minor child and to place plaintiff's name on its child abuse and neglect central registry; "The plaintiff, Natasha B., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal from the decision of a hearing officer of the defendant, the Department of Children and Families (department), who upheld the department's decision to substantiate allegations of physical abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect by the plaintiff against a minor child and to place the plaintiff's name on its child abuse and neglect central registry (central registry). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) a finding of chronicity was not required to place the plaintiff's name on the central registry, and (2) the hearing officer did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff to demonstrate changed conditions that would justify removal of her name from the central registry. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

Wednesday, April 17th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.
• New London Law Library is closed.

Thursday, April 18th

• New London Law Library is closed.

Friday, April 19th

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

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 42, for April 16, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 331: Connecticut Reports (Pages 385 - 436)
• Volume 331: Orders (Pages 913 - 916)
• Volume 331: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 189: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 235 - 304)
• Volume 189: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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