SC20397 - Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi ("The issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court properly rejected the defendants' claim that the doctrine of equitable nonforfeiture should have operated to prevent their eviction in a summary process action for nonpayment of rent under the terms of a commercial lease. The defendants, Nader Daghoghi (Nader), Sassoon Daghoghi (Sassoon), and 940 Post Road East, LLC, doing business as Savoy Rug Gallery, appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Dominick Boccanfuso (Dominick), Crescienzo Boccanfuso, and Boccanfuso Bros., Inc. (plaintiff corporation). The defendants claim that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying the defendants equitable relief from forfeiture of their tenancy. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court. ")

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

The 2020 edition of the research guide on Equitable Distribution of Marital Property in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 13, for September 29, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 939 - 943)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 200: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 356 - 554)
• Volume 200: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
• Volume 200: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

The 2020 edition of our research guide on Employment Law and the Family has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

AC41159 - Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim that prosecutor intentionally committed violations of Brady v. Maryland; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) improperly denied his request for an evidentiary hearing, and (3) improperly denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC42388 - State v. Rivera (Breach of peace in second degree; "The defendant, Juan J. Rivera, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (1). The defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the conduct giving rise to the conviction had occurred in a public place and (2) the conviction violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. With respect to the first claim, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. Because we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty, and we have reversed the judgment of conviction and ordered that the trial court render a judgment of acquittal, we need not reach the second claim.")

AC43226 - State v. Williams (Sexual assault in first degree; sexual assault in fourth degree; risk of injury to child; "The defendant, Ricardo K. Williams, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A) and one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) he was deprived of the right to a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial impropriety and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by the court under § 53a-70 (b) (2). We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43386 - State v. Castro (Murder; "The defendant, Luis Castro, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court violated his right under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution. Specifically, the defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence a ballistics report that was authored by an individual whom the defendant did not have an opportunity to confront because he did not testify at trial, after defense counsel expressly waived, without any legitimate or prudent strategical reasons, the defendant's confrontation right with respect to the author of the ballistics report. The defendant further argues that article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution provides greater protection than the federal constitution, and, thus, a waiver of the right to confrontation must be personally made by the defendant in order to comport with our state constitution. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43411 - State v. Rivera (Murder; conspiracy to commit assault in first degree; unlawful restraint in first degree; unlawful discharge of firearm; carrying pistol without permit; "The defendant, Xavier Rivera, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of the crimes of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (1) and 53a-48, unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95, unlawful discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53-203, and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) impermissibly limiting defense counsel’s argument with curative instructions to the jury and (2) admitting into evidence a copy of an audio recording of the defendant over his objections. With regard to his evidentiary claim, the defendant claims, in the alternative, that this court should exercise its supervisory powers to raise the threshold for the admission of copies of digital evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC42777 - Silver v. Silver ("In this dissolution matter, the defendant, Trevor Silver, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a postdissolution motion filed by the plaintiff, Amy Silver, seeking to 'clarify and effectuate' the judgment of dissolution rendered by the court. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly modified the dissolution judgment in granting the plaintiff's motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42570 - Rider v. Rider (Quiet title; fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; "This appeal stems from a family dispute among a father and his two sons. In an effort to revive his claims to ownership of a campground parcel, the plaintiff, Patrick Rider, has created an appellate argument reminiscent of Frankenstein's monster, as he has stitched together aspects of four separate matters: a probate proceeding, a bankruptcy action, a separate 2017 civil action (2017 action) and the underlying action in an effort to reverse the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, Brian Rider, individually and in his capacities as the executor and conservator of the estate of Leigh H. Rider, Jr. (Leigh Rider), Lake Williams Campground, Inc., Lake Williams Campground Association, Inc. (Association), Charles D. Houlihan, Jr., and Franklin G. Pilicy. The plaintiff and Brian Rider are the sons of Leigh Rider. On appeal, the plaintiff presents, for the first time, a collateral challenge to the appointment by the Probate Court of North Central Connecticut (Probate Court) of Brian Rider as conservator for Leigh Rider and the subsequent conveyance of a campground property from the conserved Leigh Rider to the Association. The plaintiff further contends that the trial court improperly dismissed his complaint on the ground that he lacked standing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC42182 - Manere v. Collins ("The plaintiff, Robert Manere, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the defendants, Peter Collins and BAHR, LLC (BAHR). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that BAHR's counterclaim stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, (2) applied a six year statute of limitations to BAHR's counterclaim, and (3) rejected his application to dissolve BAHR on the ground of oppression pursuant to General Statutes § 34-267 (a) (5), Connecticut's limited liability company dissolution statute. We agree with the plaintiff's second and third claims and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20282 - Blondeau v. Baltierra (Dissolution of Marriage; Arbitration; Appellate Jurisdiction; Whether Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award Sufficiently Invoked Trial Court's Jurisdiction; Whether Arbitration Award Properly Vacated on Ground that it Included Child Support Orders in Violation of § 46b-66; Whether Judgment Vacating Arbitration Award an Appealable Final Judgment; "This appeal requires the resolution of a series of jurisdictional and merits related issues arising from the arbitration of a marital dissolution action involving an unusual choice of law provision contained in the parties' arbitration agreement. The dispute focuses primarily on the validity of the arbitrator's award dividing the equity in the parties' marital home and assigning responsibility for certain expenses related to child support. The defendant, Michael Baltierra, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff, Sophie Blondeau, to vacate the arbitration award and denying the defendant's corresponding application to confirm the award. The trial court's decision rests on its determination that (1) the arbitrator exceeded her authority under the arbitration agreement by dividing the equity in the marital home under Connecticut law rather than French law, as prescribed by the parties' premarital agreement, (2) the arbitrator, for the same reasons, also manifestly disregarded the law controlling her decision making, and (3) the award improperly included issues related to child support. We conclude that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority under the arbitration agreement or manifestly disregard the law, but we agree with the trial court that the inclusion of issues related to child support in the award was improper. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20372 - State v. Rodriguez ("The defendant, Luis M. Rodriguez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and one count of criminal attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree. The defendant claims that (1) the trial court violated his right to confrontation, as articulated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), by allowing a laboratory analyst to testify about the results of a DNA identification analysis without requiring testimony from the individual who generated the DNA profiles, (2) his due process right was violated by the introduction of DNA identification evidence that was unreliable under Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S. Ct. 2243, 53 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1977), because of the danger that the jury would not understand the meaning of random match probability, and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• SC20372 Concurrence - State v. Rodriguez

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

The 2020 edition of our research guide on Annulment of Marriages in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 12, for September 22, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 200: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 205 - 356)
• Volume 200: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 200: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC20322 - Redding v. Georgetown Land Development Co., LLC (Foreclosure of municipal tax liens; "This appeal requires us to determine the priority of tax liens levied on real property by the Georgetown Special Taxing District (taxing district) pursuant to No. 07-196, § 4 (b) (3), of the 2007 Public Acts (P.A. 07-196) relative to tax liens held by other municipal entities on that same property. The plaintiffs, the town of Redding (town), the Redding Water Pollution Control Commission (commission), and Georgetown Fire District (fire district), brought this action to foreclose municipal liens against the defendant RJ Tax Lien Investments, LLC, an assignee of real estate tax liens originally levied by the taxing district. The town and the fire district filed motions for partial summary judgment with respect to priority, asserting that, under P.A. 07-196, § 4 (b) (3), their tax liens had priority over the liens that the defendant had acquired from the taxing district. The trial court agreed, granted their motions for partial summary judgment, and subsequently rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the town and the fire district. The defendant appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure, claiming that the trial court incorrectly concluded that its liens were subordinate to those of the town and the fire district. Although we agree with the trial court that the liens acquired by the defendant from the taxing district are subordinate to those of the town, we agree with the defendant that the trial court incorrectly concluded that they are subordinate to those of the fire district. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment insofar as the trial court granted the fire district's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to priority, and we remand the case with direction to vacate that portion of the judgment subordinating the liens acquired by the defendant to the fire district's liens, to render judgment consistent with this opinion, and for the setting of new law days.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20213 - State v. Cody M. (Criminal; Harassment; Whether Defendant Subject to Double Jeopardy on Conviction of Two Counts of Violating Protective Order; Whether Jury Properly Instructed that "Harass" Means to "Trouble, Worry or Torment."; "The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether multiple convictions for violation of a standing criminal protective order, arising from a series of statements made during a court hearing by the defendant, Cody M., to the person protected by the order, violate the constitutional protection from double jeopardy. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, rendered after a jury trial, convicting the defendant of two counts of criminal violation of a standing criminal protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223a, one count of threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-62 (a) (2), and one count of threatening in the second degree in violation of § 53a-62 (a) (3). State v. Meadows, 185 Conn. App. 287, 290, 197 A.3d 464 (2018). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, and the defendant now claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that (1) his conviction of two counts of violating a standing criminal protective order did not violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy, and (2) the trial court's jury instruction correctly defined the term "harassing" with respect to the penalty enhancement under § 53a-223a (c) (2). We conclude that the defendant's conviction of two counts of violating a standing criminal protective order did not violate his right against double jeopardy and that any possible instructional error in the trial court's definition of "harassing" was harmless, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC20213 Concurrence and Dissent - State v. Cody M.

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

AC41832 - Sosa v. Robinson (Alleged deprivation of plaintiff's federal constitutional rights; "The plaintiff, Andres Sosa, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, dismissing certain counts of his complaint in which he sought compensatory relief from the defendant, Dave Robinson, a correctional commissary lead operator at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution (MacDougall), in his individual capacity and rendering summary judgment on the remainder of the complaint in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his claims seeking compensatory relief against the defendant in his individual capacity and erred in concluding that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the remainder of the plaintiff's complaint due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. In addition to arguing that the court's subject matter jurisdiction analysis was correct, the defendant argues in the alternative that the court correctly rendered summary judgment in his favor because the plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law. We agree with the plaintiff that the court had jurisdiction over the claims in which he seeks compensatory relief against the defendant in his individual capacity. We agree, however, with the defendant's alternative argument that the plaintiff's claims fail on their merits as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Rights,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC42599 - HSBC Bank USA, National Assn. v. Gilbert (Foreclosure; whether trial court erred in granting motion for summary judgment as to liability; claim that genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendants received proper notice of default and acceleration of note; "The defendants Howard I. Gilbert and Mary S. Gilbert appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for Fremont Home Loan Trust 2005-E, Mortgage-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-E. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only (1) because the plaintiff failed to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether it sent proper notice of default and acceleration to the defendants, (2) because the plaintiff's affidavits submitted to the court in support of the motion failed to satisfy the requirements of Practice Book § 17-46, and (3) despite the fact that the plaintiff's affiants failed to establish that they had personal knowledge of the facts that were the subject of the affidavits, and that the court erred in rendering judgment of foreclosure by sale because the plaintiff's affidavit of debt was insufficient to demonstrate the amount of debt due on the subject note. We disagree and, thus, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41568, AC42396 - Clinton v. Aspinwall ("In this breach of contract and fiduciary duty case, the defendants, Michael E. Aspinwall, Steven F. Piaker, and David W. Young, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the jury, in favor of the plaintiff, John B. Clinton. The parties' dispute arises out of their ownership and operation of CCP Equity Partners, LLC (CCP). The defendants' principal claim on appeal is that the court erred in its construction of the operating agreement that governed CCP, resulting in multiple erroneous rulings throughout the course of the litigation. The defendants specifically claim that the court improperly (1) denied their motion to strike, (2) denied their motion for summary judgment, (3) denied their motion in limine, (4) charged the jury, (5) denied their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion to set aside the verdict (posttrial motions), and (6) awarded the plaintiff attorney's fees and costs. We agree that the court improperly construed portions of the agreement and reverse the judgment in part and affirm it in part, and remand the case for a new hearing on the issue of attorney's fees and costs.")

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

AC42761 - Pentland v. Commissioner (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that he already had served his sentence, and, therefore, was not ‘in custody.’ We conclude that, with respect to the convictions challenged in the amended petition, the petitioner was not in the custody of the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

AC42561 - McLoughlin v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Appeal from decision of defendant planning and zoning commission denying plaintiffs' application for special permit to construct crematory in industrial zone; "The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Bethel (commission). In that decision, the commission denied the plaintiffs' application for a special permit (application) to construct a crematory in an industrial park zoning district (industrial zone). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly dismissed their appeal because (1) the commission's denial was not supported by substantial evidence in the record and (2) the commission failed to consider their application on its merits. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

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