The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Juvenile Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3811

SC20267 - In re Tresin J. (Termination of parental rights pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (D); “In this certified appeal, we consider whether the parental rights of a father were properly terminated for lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship when, at the time of the termination trial, the six year old child had no knowledge or memory of his father, who had been incarcerated when the child was two years old…the respondent claims that the trial court should have applied the virtual infancy and interference exceptions to the lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship ground for the termination of parental rights because Tresin was only two years old when the respondent’s incarceration separated them, and the circumstances of this case, particularly the deficiencies of Tresin’s mother, rendered contact impossible during his incarceration. In light of our recent explication of these exceptions in In re Jacob W., 330 Conn. 744, 200 A.3d 1091 (2019), we disagree with the respondent’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court”).


New Laws Effective January 1, 2020

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3809

The Connecticut General Assembly has posted a list of new legislation that is effective on January 1, 2020. Each entry includes links to the full text of the public act, the plain English summary from the Office of Legislative Research, and the bill status page.

In addition, you can view current legislation effective from passage. The Connecticut General Assembly also provides an archive of legislation by effective date going back to October 2007.


Connecticut Law Journal - December 31, 2019

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3810

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 27, for December 31, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents
Volume 334: Connecticut Reports (Pages 279 - 313)
Volume 334: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 195: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 71 - 130)
Volume 195: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
Notice Publishing Deadlines


Law Library Hours Update - December 20th - January 3rd

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3799

Monday, December 30th

  • Bridgeport Law Library is closed.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Tuesday, December 31st

  • Bridgeport Law Library is closed.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library closes at 3:15 p.m.

Wednesday, January 1st

  • All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3806

AC42128 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Bennett - ("The defendant Dalphine Bennett appeals from the entry of a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association as trustee, successor in interest to Bank of America, National Association, as trustee, successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, National Association, as trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-4.The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to the defendant's counterclaims alleging (a) vexatious litigation and (b) abuse of process; and (2) failed to hold an immediate hearing in damages following the entry of summary judgment as to liability only, which violated Practice Book § 17-50.We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Habeas Corpus Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3807

AC41330 - Zillo v. Commisioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Geovanny Zillo, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his revised amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by denying his request to "unwithdraw" a claim and present medical evidence regarding his genitals, (2) improperly concluded that he was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) improperly concluded that he was not denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. We conclude that the habeas court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the third claim and dismiss that portion of the appeal. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court as to the remaining two claims.")



Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3808

SC20087 - State v. Blaine ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-134 (a) (2) should be reversed under the plain error doctrine due to an alleged error in the trial court's jury instructions. The defendant, Jayevon Blaine, contends that the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury on an essential element of the crime as required by State v. Pond, 138 Conn. App. 228, 238–39, 50 A.3d 950 (2012), aff'd, 315 Conn. 451, 108 A.3d 1083 (2015), namely, that he agreed and specifically intended that he or another participant in the robbery would be 'armed with a deadly weapon . . . .' General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (2). The Appellate Court held that there was no 'obvious and undebatable error' in the trial court's jury instructions because the relevant instructions 'logically required the jury to find that the defendant had agreed that a participant would be armed with a deadly weapon.' State v. Blaine, 179 Conn. App. 499, 510, 180 A.3d 622 (2018). The Appellate Court also held that, even if the instructions were erroneous, there was no manifest injustice necessitating reversal of the defendant's conviction because '[e]very witness who testified that the agreement existed also testified that use of a weapon was contemplated.' Id., 511. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

AC42443 - State v. Francis ("The defendant, Maurice Francis, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to establish that he caused the death of the victim or that he had the specific intent to cause the death of the victim. In the alternative, the defendant requests that we change our long-standing standard of review with respect to insufficiency of evidence claims, so that we review the evidence under a much more rigorous standard to determine if there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a hypothesis of innocence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Declaratory Judgment Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3805

SC20071 - Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc. v. Platner ("General Statutes § 51-183c precludes a judge who tried a case without a jury from trying the case again after a reviewing court reverses the judgment. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether that statute applies when this court reverses the trial court's judgment as to damages only and remands the case to the trial court to take new evidence and recalculate damages.

The defendant Beverly Platner appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following our reversal in part and remand in Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc. v. Platner, 325 Conn. 737, 159 A.3d 666 (2017), for further proceedings on the issue of damages. The defendant challenges the judgment as to both the damages awarded to the plaintiff, Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc., and injunctive relief directing the defendant to remedy a violation of a conservation restriction on her property pursuant to a restoration plan ordered by the trial court. The defendant claims that the trial judge improperly denied her motion to disqualify himself from retrying the damages issue, and, as a result, both the damages award and injunction were improper. We agree with the defendant on the issue of disqualification and reverse the trial court's judgment as to damages and remand for new proceedings before a new judge consistent with our original remand order.")



Connecticut Law Journal - December 24, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3804

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 26, for December 24, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 334: Connecticut Reports (Pages 202 - 279)
  • Volume 334: Orders (Pages 909 - 910)
  • Volume 334: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 195: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 71)
  • Volume 195: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
  • Volume 195: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
  • Notice Publishing Deadlines


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3803

AC41546 - Starboard Fairfield Development, LLC v. Gremp ("In this action arising out of a dispute over real estate investments and the disentanglement of business relationships, the defendants William C. Gremp and W C Gremp, LLC (WCG) appeal, following a bench trial, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Starboard Fairfield Development, LLC (Starboard), and RR One, LLC (RR One), on counts alleging breach of a general release, slander of title, intentional interference with a contractual relationship, and breach of a promissory note. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) determined that they breached a general release with Starboard by pursuing a civil action against the plaintiffs, (2) found that they slandered RR One's title to certain property by recording a lis pendens and an affidavit of fact pertaining to that property on the Bridgeport land records, (3) found that they intentionally interfered with RR One's contract to sell the property to a third party, (4) awarded RR One interest on $5000 that RR One was forced to hold in escrow due to the defendants' actions, and (5) awarded punitive damages without providing the defendants with adequate notice of a hearing in accordance with Practice Book §§ 7-5, 14-7, and 14-20. After a careful review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the defendants' claims are either inadequately briefed or wholly unpersuasive on the basis of the record presented, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3801

AC41622 - Michael D. v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: claim of failure to “(1) to ensure that a pornographic magazine was not admitted into evidence by ensuring that the trial court conduct an in camera review of the magazine and (2) to request a specific unanimity instruction. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court”).

AC42058 - Cunningham v. Commissioner of Correction (Denial of amended petition; “The petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation into the petitioner’s theory of self-defense, and (2) referring to the petitioner as a ‘bully’ during closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court”).


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3802

AC41789 - Jacques v. Jacques ("The plaintiff, Jean-Marc Jacques, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Muriel Jacques. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred by (1) concluding that his action was barred by the statute of limitations contained in General Statutes § 52-576 (a), (2) determining that it lacked continuing jurisdiction to enforce the parties' separation agreement, and (3) failing to construe the parties' separation agreement as a contract and to effectuate the intent of the parties to the contract. Because, however, the plaintiff has failed to challenge an independent ground for the trial court's ruling, the plaintiff's appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.")


Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3800

SC20048 - State v. Holmes (Felony murder; home invasion, conspiracy to commit home invasion; criminal possession of firearm; "C. J. From its inception, the United States Supreme Court's landmark decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), has been roundly criticized as ineffectual in addressing the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges during jury selection, largely because it fails to address the effect of implicit bias or lines of voir dire questioning with a disparate impact on minority jurors. Consistent with these long-standing criticisms of Batson, the defendant, Evan Jaron Holmes, asks us in this certified appeal to overrule the line of cases in which this court held that a prospective juror's negative views about the police and the fairness of the criminal justice system constitute a race neutral reason for the use of a peremptory challenge to strike that juror. See, e.g., State v. King, 249 Conn. 645, 664–67, 735 A.2d 267 (1999). We conclude that the challenged line of cases, on which the Appellate Court relied in upholding the defendant's conviction of felony murder on the basis of its rejection of his Batson claim arising from the prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge during jury selection; see State v. Holmes, 176 Conn. App. 156, 175–77, 169 A.3d 264 (2017); remains consistent with the federal constitutional case law that provides the sole basis for the Batson claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court in this case but refer the systemic concerns about Batson's failure to address the effects of implicit bias and disparate impact to a Jury Selection Task Force, appointed by the Chief Justice, to consider measures intended to promote the selection of diverse jury panels in our state's courthouses.")

SC20042 - State v. Raynor (Assault first degree as accessory; conspiracy to commit assault first degree; certification from Appellate Court; "The defendant, James Raynor, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (5) and 53a-8, and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (5) and 53a-48. State v. Raynor, 175 Conn. App. 409, 412–13, 167 A.3d 1076 (2017). On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that that the record was inadequate to review his challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), to the prosecutor's exercise of a peremptory challenge on prospective juror R.E. on the basis of his employment history, even though the record does not indicate the race or ethnicity of both R.E. and one of the two jurors, I.L. and G.H., whom the defendant highlighted as examples of disparate treatment by the prosecutor. In response, the state disagrees and also proffers, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that the trial court did not commit clear error in finding that the prosecutor did not engage in purposeful discrimination when he peremptorily challenged R.E. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

SC19869 - State v. Moore (Murder; certification from Appellate Court; "After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

Beyond dismissing the appeal, however, we offer an additional observation with respect to the defendant's request, supported by the amicus curiae Office of the Chief Public Defender, to exercise our supervisory authority over the administration of justice to enhance the diversity of our state's juries by requiring the jury administrator to collect racial and demographic information about prospective jurors, including by (1) amending the juror questionnaire to mandate the inclusion of racial and ethnic background, rather than the current practice under § 51-232 (c) of making the provision of such information voluntary, which might skew the data collected, and (2) maintaining statistical information based on that data prior to the destruction of the questionnaires in accordance with Judicial Branch policy intended to protect juror confidentiality. See, e.g., Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction, 328 Conn. 610, 612–15, 182 A.3d 78 (2018) (providing additional explanation in dismissing appeal as improvidently granted). As we noted in State v. Raynor, 334 Conn. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2019), a companion case raising similar issues in the context of claims under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), the fact that the legislature has acted in this area by enacting § 51-232 (c)—which specifically makes the provision of racial and ethnic data optional for the juror—renders us reluctant to exercise our supervisory authority in the sweeping manner sought by the defendant and the amicus curiae Office of the Chief Public Defender. Instead, we anticipate these issues will be considered by the Jury Selection Task Force, which the Chief Justice will appoint pursuant to our decision in State v. Holmes, 334 Conn. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2019), to suggest those changes to court policies, rules, and legislation necessary to ensure that our state court juries are representative of Connecticut's diverse population.

The appeal is dismissed.")

AC42490 - State v. Mukhtaar (Murder; "The self-represented defendant, Abdul Mukhtaar, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his motion for a second sentence review hearing. The court dismissed the defendant's motion after finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the motion. We affirm the judgment of the court dismissing the defendant's motion.")

AC42061, AC42062 - State v. Bradley (Sale of controlled substance; violation of probation; "In this consolidated appeal, the defendant, William Hyde Bradley, appeals from judgments that were rendered against him by the trial court following his entry of conditional pleas of nolo contendere to charges of sale of a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (b) and violation of probation in violation of General Statutes § 53a-32. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in denying his motions to dismiss those charges, wherein he argued, inter alia, that his prosecution under Connecticut's statutes criminalizing the possession and sale of marijuana violated his rights under the equal protection clause of the United States constitution because such statutes were enacted for the illicit purpose of discriminating against persons of African-American and Mexican descent. We affirm the judgments of the court, concluding that it did not err in denying the defendant's motions to dismiss. We do so, however, on the alternative ground raised by the state that the defendant, as a nonmember of either group of persons against whom he claims that the challenged statutes were enacted to discriminate, lacked standing to bring such an equal protection claim. Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of the defendant's equal protection claim on this appeal.")




Connecticut Law Journal - December 17, 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3797

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 25, for December 17, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 334: Connecticut Reports (Pages 100 - 202)
  • Volume 334: Orders (Pages 904 - 908)
  • Volume 334: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 194: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 767 - 886)
  • Volume 194: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3794

AC42147 - State v. Vasquez (Application for discharge from jurisdiction of Psychiatric Security Review Board; "The acquittee, Ruben Vasquez, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his application for discharge from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board). On appeal, the acquittee claims that the court erred in denying his application for discharge because the diagnoses attributed to him—cannabis induced psychotic episode, an acute intoxication now in full remission; cannabis use disorder in remission in a controlled environment; and alcohol use disorder in remission in a controlled environment—are not considered mental illnesses and, thus, do not constitute psychiatric disabilities under General Statutes §§ 17a-580 through 17a-602 (board statutes). We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC41503 - State v. Villar (Unlawful discharge of firearm; carrying pistol without permit; risk of injury to child; reckless endangerment in first degree; "The defendant, Jeffrey Villar, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of unlawful discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53-203, carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a), reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-63 (a), and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). He claims that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to have found him guilty of those crimes because (1) the state did not present sufficient evidence to prove that he fired the gunshot at issue and the complainant had an interest in seeing the defendant convicted, and (2) the only witness who testified to the defendant's firing the shot was a codefendant who had an interest in seeing the defendant convicted. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably find the defendant guilty of the charged crimes and, therefore, affirm the trial court's judgment.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3796

AC41640 - John B. v. Commissioner of Correction (Affirmative defense of mental disease or defect pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-13; whether due process rights were violated under federal and state constitutions when trial court failed to instruct jury; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred when it concluded that (1) the trial court’s failure to charge the jury pursuant to Salamon was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court”.)

AC41930 - Kondjoua v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claims that (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him properly of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), and (2) his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the habeas court”.)

AC38272 - Cooke v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner asserts that (1) his claims were properly certified for appellate review by the habeas court, (2) the cumulative effect of his trial counsel’s errors deprived him of effective assistance of counsel, (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in not ensuring that he was competent to stand trial, and (4) the court erred in failing to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Office of the Chief Public Defender to provide him with legal assistance to pursue the present appeal. The respondent, in turn, argues that the habeas court lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition for certification to appeal more than four months after its initial denial of certification to appeal. In response, the petitioner contends that the court had continuing jurisdiction to grant the petition for certification to appeal. We agree that the court had continuing jurisdiction to grant the petition for certification to appeal, but conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in denying both the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court”.)


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3793

AC41818 - Cyr v. VKB, LLC ("The plaintiff, Cynthia Cyr, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, VKB, LLC (VKB), Shady Oaks Assisted Living, LLC (Shady Oaks Assisted Living), Shady Oaks Rest Home, Inc. (Shady Oaks Rest Home), Vernon W. Belanger, and Kay F. Belanger. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts of her amended complaint when it (1) failed to require the defendants, as the movants for summary judgment, first to establish that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, (2) determined that the defendants' alleged affirmative acts did not create the defect in the sidewalk, and (3) purportedly determined, as a matter of law, that a business owner that invites individuals to enter and exit its property at a particular location owes no duty to ensure that such location is reasonably safe. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Business Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3795

SC19940 - Saunders v. Briner ("This appeal requires us to consider five issues: (1) whether, in the absence of authorization in a limited liability company's operating agreement, its members or managers lack standing to bring derivative claims on behalf of it under either the Connecticut Limited Liability Company Act (CLLCA), General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 34-100 et seq., or, in the alternative, the common law; (2) whether a trial court may exempt single member limited liability companies from the direct and separate injury requirement necessary to bring a direct action; (3) under what circumstances may a trial court admit opinion testimony of a joint, court-appointed fiduciary hired to wind up the companies at issue when the party who proffered the testimony of the fiduciary failed to disclose him as an expert witness under Practice Book § 13-4; (4) under what circumstances, if any, may the trial court apportion its award of attorney's fees under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., between the plaintiff's CUTPA claims and non-CUTPA claims; and (5) the parameters under which a trial court may order reimbursement for fees incurred by a joint, court-appointed fiduciary hired to wind up the companies at issue. The defendants, Clark Briner and two entities solely owned by Briner, a Connecticut limited liability company and a Texas limited liability company with the same name, Revere Capital, LLC (respectively, Revere Capital CT and Revere Capital TX), appeal, following a bench trial, from the trial court's judgment. The plaintiff, Roger L. Saunders, cross appeals from the trial court's judgment. We reverse the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff as to his derivative claims because we conclude that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring them under the CLLCA or the common law. We, therefore, do not reach the issues of whether the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of a joint, court-appointed fiduciary or whether the trial court incorrectly apportioned the plaintiff's award of attorney's fees under CUTPA. We affirm the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff as to his direct claims and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order the defendants to reimburse the plaintiff for the fees incurred by the joint, court-appointed fiduciary and an accountant hired by him.")

SC20066 - Wiederman v. Halpert ("PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Malkie Wiederman, commenced this action arising out of a real estate investment agreement with the defendants Issac Halpert and Marsha Halpert, seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. After the trial court rendered a judgment of default against the defendants for failing to appear at a trial management conference, it held a hearing to determine damages. On the basis of the evidence presented by the plaintiff at that hearing, at which the defendants also failed to appear, the trial court awarded the plaintiff $600,892.58 in compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs. Thereafter, the defendants moved to open the judgment rendered against them and to enjoin the plaintiff from enforcing it. The trial court, noting both that the defendants received multiple notices to new and old addresses and that Issac Halpert failed to appear and to testify at the hearing on damages despite being personally served by subpoena, denied their motion. The defendants then appealed from the trial court's denial of their motion to open, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims because the alleged injuries sustained by her were derivative of the harm suffered by the limited liability companies of which she and the defendants were members, and, as such, the plaintiff lacked standing to recover directly. See Wiederman v. Halpert, 178 Conn. App. 783, 793, 176 A.3d 1242 (2017). The Appellate Court rejected the defendants' claim, concluding that, because the plaintiff sufficiently alleged an injury that was separate and distinct from that suffered by the limited liability companies—as she alleged, among other things, that the defendants forged her signature on certain financial documents—the trial court had properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over her direct claims. See id., 797–98. We granted the defendants' petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the determination of the trial court that the plaintiff had standing to sue?" Wiederman v. Halpert, 328 Conn. 906, 177 A.3d 1161 (2018).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.")


General Statutes Amended or Repealed in 2019

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3791


1 2