Below is a recent update to the Judicial Branch home page and COVID-19 information page:

• May 29, 2020: The Sentence Review docket for June is canceled.
• May 28, 2020: The Judicial Branch is Expanding its Remote Capabilities

For the most current information, see the COVID-19 information page. Additionally, there is a Frequently Asked Questions – COVID-19 and Court Business web page organized by topic.

• Posted in:
• FYI

AC41794 - Hassiem v. O and G Industries, Inc. (Workers' compensation; "Our Workers' Compensation Act (act); General Statutes § 31-275 et seq.; provides the exclusive remedy for an employee who sustains an injury that arises out of and in the course of employment, unless the employee can establish "an employer's subjective intent to create a dangerous situation with a substantial certainty of injury to the employee [thereby] avoiding application of General Statutes § 31-284 (a), the exclusive remedy provision of the [act] . . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lucenti v. Laviero, 327 Conn. 764, 766, 176 A.3d 1 (2018). Decisions issued by this court and our Supreme Court repeatedly have stressed the need for this stringent rule to uphold the legislative intent underlying our workers' compensation scheme.

In the present matter, the plaintiff, Dila Hassiem, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, O & G Industries, Inc., after concluding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the exclusivity provision of the act. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact that the defendant did not engage in an intentional act knowing that there was a substantial certainty that the plaintiff would be injured. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC41680 - Procurement, LLC v. Ahuja (Vexatious litigation; zoning appeals; "The plaintiff, Procurement, LLC, brings this action sounding in vexatious litigation, abuse of process, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42a-110g et seq., aiding and abetting, and tortious interference with contractual and business relations, and seeking damages from the defendants Gurpreet Ahuja and Ahuja Holdings, LLC (Holdings), on the ground that they generally sought to impede the plaintiff's development of a mixed use development project. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after the granting of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Ahuja's zoning appeals with regard to the plaintiff's proposed development plan were not objectively baseless and, therefore, the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine was not applicable, and (2) the court misinterpreted the sham exception under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC41576 - Kammili v. Kammili (Marital dissolution; "The plaintiff, Srinivas Kammili, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the defendant, Saisudha Kammili. The plaintiff makes numerous claims on appeal, including that the trial court (1) improperly declined to admit many of his exhibits into evidence, (2) failed to address several of his pretrial motions in a timely manner, and (3) inequitably distributed the marital property, specifically, the parties' bank accounts, real property, and certain gold jewelry. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC42175 - Chang v. Chang (Dissolution of marriage; postjudgment order of contempt; "In this postdissolution matter, the defendant, David Chang, appeals and the plaintiff, Melissa Chang, cross appeals from the judgment of the trial court resolving their postjudgment motions for contempt. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's October 25, 2017 motion for contempt regarding her proposed adjustment to the parties' parenting access schedule. On cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied her November 15, 2017 motion for contempt regarding the timely return of the parties' minor son to her by the defendant after school and (2) granted the defendant's November 19, 2017 motion for contempt regarding withheld consent by the plaintiff to procure private physical therapy for the parties' minor daughter. We agree with the defendant. We also agree with the plaintiff as to her second claim, but disagree with her first claim. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41987 - Woods v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; "The petitioner, Jermaine Woods, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court denied the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) abused its discretion by dismissing his petition without fair notice to him and without holding a hearing on his petition, (3) erred by dismissing count one of his petition alleging that his conviction was illegal because (a) evidence of his diminished capacity was not properly presented at his criminal trial and sentencing and (b) mitigating circumstances warrant reduction of his sentence, and (4) erred by dismissing count two of his petition alleging violation of his constitutional right to equal protection. We dismiss the appeal.")

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

AC40384 - State v. Lori T. (Custodial interference in second degree; "The defendant, Lori T., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of three counts of custodial interference in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-98 (a) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that § 53a-98 (a) (3) is unconstitutionally vague in its application to her and that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. We disagree with both claims, and, thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40224 - State v. Velazquez (Operation of motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs; sufficiency of evidence; "The self-represented defendant, Marcos A. Velazquez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a bench trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction and (2) the court improperly admitted the testimony of a police officer with regard to the presence of a marijuana odor in the defendant's vehicle at the time he was involved in an accident. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40322 - State v. Milner (Murder; criminal possession of firearm; "The defendant, Chiffon Milner, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a trial to the court, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because (1) the court improperly relied on his inculpatory statements to a former friend, Kevin Barco, in the absence of substantial independent evidence corroborating the trustworthiness of those statements, in violation of the corpus delicti rule, and (2) even if the state satisfied the requirements of the corpus delicti rule with respect to the defendant's statements to Barco, Barco's testimony and that of the state's other witnesses was too unreliable to support the defendant's conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

Below are recent updates to the Judicial Branch home page and COVID-19 information page:

• May 27, 2020: Limited Operations to Resume in Three Currently Closed Courthouses
• May 27, 2020: Update: Notice of the Special Session of the Appellate Court
• May 26, 2020: CSSD Update on Juvenile Detention Centers – PowerPoint presented on May 21, 2020

For the most current information, see the COVID-19 information page. Additionally, there is a Frequently Asked Questions – COVID-19 and Court Business web page organized by topic.

• Posted in:
• FYI

AC43251 - In re Omar I. ("The self-represented respondent father, Ammar A. I. appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating his parental rights pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) as to three of his biological minor children, the petitioners, Omar, Safiyah, and Muneer (children), and denying his motion to revoke the court's order committing the children to the care, custody, and guardianship of the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner). The respondent claims that (1) judicial bias deprived him of a fair trial, (2) the court improperly found that he failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable period of time, considering the ages and needs of the children, he could assume a responsible position in the children's lives, (3) the court improperly found that the termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests, (4) the court improperly found that the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children, (5) the department was estopped from supporting the petitions brought by the children to terminate his parental rights, and (6) the court improperly denied his motion to revoke the court's order that committed the children to the care and custody of the commissioner. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Office of Legislative Research has published the following reports:

Motor Vehicle Repossession - 2020-R-0133 - This report summarizes the process for repossessing, redeeming, and reselling a motor vehicle in Connecticut. It updates information in OLR Report 2002-R-0270.

School Superintendent Duties and Requirement - 2020-R-0146 - What are the statutory duties of a school superintendent? Does state law require all school districts to have a superintendent?

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 48, for May 26, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 919 - 919)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 197: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 373 - 498)
• Volume 197: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 197: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

A new Connecticut Law by Subject page has been posted to our website. Connecticut Law About Self-Service Storage Facilities provides links to research resources, statutes and regulations, and state agency information.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

SC20237, SC20238, SC20239 - Lime Rock Park, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Zoning; Whether General Statutes § 14-164a Preempts Zoning Regulation of Days and Hours of Motor Vehicle Racing; "These appeals arise from the adoption by the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission (commission) of the Town of Salisbury (town), of certain amendments to the town's zoning regulations restricting motor vehicle racing activities on property owned by the plaintiff, Lime Rock Park, LLC. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the adoption of the amendments. Thereafter, the intervening defendant, Lime Rock Citizens Council, LLC (council), filed a motion to intervene in the appeal, which the trial court granted. After a trial to the court, the court sustained the plaintiff's appeal in part and dismissed it in part. All three parties appealed from the decision, raising numerous claims. We conclude that the trial court incorrectly (1) sustained the portion of the plaintiff's appeal claiming that the provision of the amended regulations prohibiting racing activities on Sundays was preempted by General Statutes § 14-164a (a), (2) denied the portion of the appeal claiming that the commission lacked the authority to condition the filing of a petition to amend the regulations on obtaining a special permit, and (3) concluded that the amended regulations prohibited racing activities on Saturdays. We further conclude that the trial court correctly (1) determined that the plaintiff did not waive its right to challenge the regulation prohibiting Sunday racing, and (2) denied the portion of the plaintiff's appeal claiming that the amendments' restrictions on unmufflered racing are subject to the provision of General Statutes § 22a-73 (c), requiring the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to approve municipal noise control ordinances. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's judgment.")

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

Below is a recent update to the Judicial Branch home page and COVID-19 information page:

• May 21, 2020 -- Remote Justice - Virtual Courtroom Instructions

For the most current information, see the COVID-19 information page. Additionally, there is a Frequently Asked Questions – COVID-19 and Court Business web page organized by topic.

• Posted in:
• FYI

AC42183 - Anthis v. Windom (Negligence; recklessness; motion in limine; motion for remittitur; motion to open; "The defendant, Robert D. Windom, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying various motions that he filed in the present action commenced by the plaintiff, Kristine S. Anthis, in favor of whom the court rendered judgment following a jury trial. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his (1) motion in limine, (2) motion for remittitur, and (3) motion to open, which, the defendant contends, effectively resulted in a double recovery by the plaintiff and a double payment by the defendant with respect to property damage expenses incurred by the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41333 - Greene v. Keating (Vexatious litigation pursuant to statute (§ 52-568); "The plaintiff, Brenda Greene, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant law firm, Rucci, Burnham, Carta, Carello & Reilly, LLP, in the plaintiff's vexatious litigation action. On appeal, Greene claims that the court improperly concluded that, although she had established one of her vexatious litigation claims against the defendant, the defendant was entitled to judgment in its favor because Greene failed to prove the amount of her damages. Specifically, Greene claims that the court improperly concluded that she failed to present evidence that would allow the court reasonably to calculate damages in the form of attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39574 - Osborn v. Waterbury (Negligence; "This negligence action against the defendants, the city of Waterbury (city) and the Waterbury Board of Education (board), concerns the injuries that the minor plaintiff, Tatayana Osborn (child), sustained during a lunchtime recess at her elementary school. This appeal returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court following its reversal of this panel's prior decision. See Osborn v. Waterbury, 333 Conn. 816, 834, 220 A.3d 1 (2019) (holding that expert testimony not necessary to determine whether 'the defendants adequately supervised the children"). Our Supreme Court remanded the case to us "to consider the defendants' remaining claims on appeal.' Id. Those claims are that 'the trial court improperly (1) rejected [the defendants'] special defense of governmental immunity for discretionary acts, (2) concluded that the plaintiffs' injuries were caused when an inadequate number of adults were assigned to supervise up to 400 students when there was evidence that there were no more than 50 students on the playground . . . and [(3)] awarded damages intended to encourage continued therapy and occupational training for the child in the absence of evidence that she would need such services in the future.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 821–22. We agree with the defendants' second claim and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for a new trial.")

• AC39574 - Dissent - Osborn v. Waterbury

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC42522 - Berger v. Deutermann (Breach of contract; "In this breach of contract action in connection with the attempted sale of real property by the defendants, Guy Deutermann and Diane Deutermann, the self-represented plaintiff, Dana Berger, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants on all counts of her complaint. She contends that the court (1) failed to recognize the defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations in trial exhibits, (2) improperly concluded that the roof of the property was properly installed, (3) failed to consider Diane Deutermann's answers to certain interrogatories that conflicted with Guy Deutermann's testimony, (4) improperly concluded that Guy Deutermann acted under an honestly held claim of right in retaining the plaintiff's deposit funds, and (5) improperly concluded that she failed to close on the purchase of the property and that the defendants rightfully retained her $12,000 deposit pursuant to the parties' agreement. We decline to reach the merits of the plaintiff's appeal due to an inadequate record.Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42270 - Factor King, LLC v. Housing Authority (Summary judgment; "The plaintiff, Factor King, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant Housing Authority for the City of Meriden. The question presented in this appeal is whether, pursuant to a factoring and security agreement between a factor (purchaser) and a seller, the purchaser is entitled to direct payment of a receivable due to the seller from an account not purchased through the agreement, but in which the purchaser has a security interest to secure the seller's obligations as delineated in the agreement. Because we answer that question in the negative, we affirm the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40470 - Powers v. Hiranandani (Dissolution of marriage; Subject matter jurisdiction over real property; "The defendant, Kaveesh Hiranandani, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Colleen Powers. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the real property it awarded to the plaintiff, (2) issued orders with respect to real property that were predicated on a mistake and are impossible to execute, (3) abused its discretion by dividing the real property between the parties without determining its value, (4) abused its discretion by failing to divide the parties' personal property, (5) improperly ordered him to pay a percentage of the cost of all future extracurricular activities of the parties' child, and (6) abused its discretion by issuing financial orders in excess of his ability to pay. We agree with the defendant's fourth claim, but disagree with the remainder of his claims. We, therefore, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")

AC41738 - Igersheim v. Bezrutczyk (Petition for visitation; Subject matter jurisdiction; "The defendant, Tiffany M. Bezrutczyk, appeals from the trial court's judgment granting the petition filed by the plaintiff, Sandra L. Igersheim, for visitation with her grandson, the defendant's minor child. The defendant claims that the court erred in a number of its rulings. We conclude that the defendant did not adequately brief these claims and, therefore, we decline to review them. See Clelford v. Bristol, 150 Conn. App. 229, 233, 90 A.3d 998 (2014). We do, however, consider the claims raised in the brief of the court-appointed guardian ad litem that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition, (2) improperly concluded that the denial of visitation to the plaintiff would cause real and significant harm, and (3) impermissibly precluded testimony and recommendations by the guardian ad litem. We agree with the guardian ad litem with respect to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court and remand the case with direction to dismiss the petition.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42548 - In re Probate Appeal of Buckingham (Probate appeal; subject matter jurisdiction; fraud; "An unusual feature of Connecticut law involves the role of the Superior Court in probate appeals. In such appeals, the Superior Court sheds its status as a constitutional court of general jurisdiction and assumes the status of a statutory Probate Court of limited jurisdiction. See In re Probate Appeal of Knott, 190 Conn. App. 56, 61, 209 A.3d 690 (2019); State v. Gordon, 45 Conn. App. 490, 494–95, 696 A.2d 1034, cert. granted on other grounds, 243 Conn. 911, 701 A.2d 336 (1997) (appeal dismissed October 27, 1998). In the present case, we are asked to decide whether, while adjudicating a probate appeal, a Superior Court may entertain a direct challenge to a probate decree admitting a will to probate based on a claim of fraud. Because, in the context of the present case, such claim of fraud may be raised only by way of a separate equitable action and not a probate appeal, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the probate appeal filed by the plaintiffs, Sheryl Buckingham and Darlene Dunn, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Office of Legislative Research has published the following reports:

Residential Tenants' Protections During the COVID-19 Pandemic - 2020-R-0124 - Summarize the governor’s COVID-19 executive orders concerning protections for residential tenants.

Municipal Land Use Procedures Modified by Executive Order 7I - 2020-R-0127 - Provide an overview of the changes to municipal land use procedures under Executive Order (EO) 7I.

State Tax Treatment of Paycheck Protection Program Forgiven Loans - 2020-R-0144 - Are the Paycheck Protection Program’s (PPP) forgiven loans subject to Connecticut income tax?

Condominium Meetings and Elections During COVID-19 Pandemic - 2020-R-0143 - Summarize the governor’s executive order and related requirements in state law on condominiums and other common interest community associations conducting remote meetings and elections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Local Tax Relief in Response to COVID-19: Deferment and Low Interest Rate Programs - 2020-R-0132 - Summarize the Deferment and Low Interest Rate programs established in Executive Order (EO) 7S, as amended by EO 7W.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

Below are recent updates to the Judicial Branch home page and COVID-19 information page:

• May 20, 2020: Special Sessions of the Supreme and Appellate Courts

• May 20, 2020: Interim COVID-19 Criminal Procedures and Technical Standards

For the most current information, see the COVID-19 information page. Additionally, there is a Frequently Asked Questions – COVID-19 and Court Business web page organized by topic.

• Posted in:
• FYI

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 47, for May 19, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 918 - 918)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 197: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 353 - 372)
• Volume 197: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Connecticut Practice Book Amendments

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