AC42437 - Turner v. Commissioner of Correction (“Second amended fifth petition for a writ of habeas corpus; On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion by (1) denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) dismissing his claim that he was deprived of a fair trial during his first habeas trial, (3) denying his claims that the prosecuting authority violated his state and federal constitutional rights by failing (a) to disclose exculpatory evidence and (b) to preserve the exculpatory evidence, and (4) denying his motion to open the judgment and disqualify the judicial authority. We dismiss the appeal”.)

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

AC41802 - State v. Schimanski (Operating motor vehicle while license was under suspension in violation of statute (§ 14-215); "The defendant, Anastasia Schimanski, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court following her conditional plea of nolo contendere to operating a motor vehicle while her license was suspended in violation of General Statutes § 14-215 (c) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss directed to (1) count one of the state’s first substitute information charging her with a violation of § 14-215 (c) (1), and (2) count two of the state’s first substitute information charging her with operating a motor vehicle not equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device (IID) in violation of General Statutes § 14-227k (a) (2). We conclude that (1) the court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss as to count one of the state’s first substitute information, and (2) the defendant’s claims directed to the denial of her motion to dismiss as to the second count of the first substitute information are either moot or not ripe. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to the denial of the motion to dismiss the second count of the first substitute information for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

AC43721 - In re Madison C. (The respondent mother, Patricia K., appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to each of her three minor children on the ground that the respondent failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court deprived her of her substantive due process rights as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution because termination of her parental rights was not the least restrictive means necessary to ensure the state’s compelling interest in protecting the best interests of the children. As part of her claim, the respondent further asserts that the record disclosed that narrower means other than termination were available to protect the children from harm and afford them statutory permanency. We conclude that the record was inadequate to review the respondent’s constitutional claim, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 17, for October 27, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 200 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 233 - 234
• Volume 200 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 239 - 240
• Volume 200 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 249 - 250
• Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 377 - 448)
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 955 - 960)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 201: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 46 - 163)
• Volume 201: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 201: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

A new video has been added to the Self-Represented Parties Information Series. The new video is a slidecast on Writing a Motion. This video provides a general overview to writing a motion: how to format the document, how to try and find sample language , and how to write the text if you are not able to find sample language. This is designed to help those who need to draft their own motions for motions that do not preexist as either an official court form or one of our templates.

• Posted in:
• Did You Know?,
• Self-Help

AC42899 - Northwest Hills Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (Administrative appeal; "In this administrative appeal, the plaintiffs, Northwest Hills Chrysler Jeep, LLC, Gengras Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC, Crowley Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., doing business as Crowley Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram, and Papa's Dodge, Inc., challenge the judgment of the trial court dismissing their appeal. The plaintiffs had appealed from the decision of a hearing officer for the defendants Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Motor Vehicles (collectively, department), which found that good cause existed to allow the defendant FCA US, LLC (FCA), to establish a new Jeep dealership at the defendant Mitchell Dodge, Inc. (Mitchell), in Canton. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC42899 Appendix - Northwest Hills Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles

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

AC43384 - State v. Hazard (Robbery in first degree; "The defendant, Dennis G. Hazard, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish his identity as the person who committed the robbery, (2) he established the affirmative defense of inoperability of a gun that was found in the car he had been driving, (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial, and (4) the trial court erred in failing to give the jury his requested instruction on identification. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

The 2020 edition of our research guide on Request to Revise has been added to our research guides web page.

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

SC20433 - Cookish v. Commissioner of Correction (“The habeas court, acting sua sponte and without providing the petitioner with notice or a hearing, dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 for lack of jurisdiction. The habeas court determined that dismissal pursuant to § 23-29 (1) was warranted and that the petition should be returned because it was apparent, on the face of the petition, that the petitioner was not in custody for the conviction being challenged. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the habeas court improperly (1) dismissed the petition under § 23-29 without first appointing him counsel and providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard, and (2) failed to construe the habeas petition as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 16, for October 20, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 300 - 377)
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 952 - 955)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 200: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 802 - 869)
• Volume 200: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 905)
• Volume 200: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 201: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 45)
• Volume 201: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC42515 - Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner contends that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal because he properly had established in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus that his constitutional right to the effective assistance of trial counsel had been violated during his criminal trial when a jury found him guilty of assault in the first degree with a firearm and assault of a peace officer with a firearm. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal".)

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

AC42074 - American Tax Funding, LLC v. Design Land Developers of Newtown, Inc. (Municipal tax collection; "The defendant estate of Francis D. D'Addario (estate) appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Reoco, LLC (Reoco). On appeal, the estate claims, inter alia, that the court improperly granted Reoco's motion for judgment on default with respect to two counts of the amended complaint, which sought an in personam money judgment against the estate for the 2005 and 2006 taxes due on the subject property. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal and vacate the judgment of the trial court as against the estate.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42747 - Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Gabriel (Summary process; return of service; whether trial court properly denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; "In this summary process action, the defendants . . . appeal from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, as well as from the court's denials of their postjudgment motions to open and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the defendants limit their challenge to the court's denial of their motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. . .

In the present case, there was no genuine dispute as to any jurisdictional fact necessary to find that the defendants had been served with the notice to quit. The record before the court revealed that all defendants had been served. First, the marshal's return of service was prima facie evidence that each defendant had been served, at a minimum, by abode service.See Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 390, 132 A.2d 573 (1957) ('[t]he return is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein'). Second, as a result of the entry of default against the defendants for their failure to plead, all material facts in the complaint were deemed admitted. See Catalina v. Nicolelli, 90 Conn. App. 219, 221, 876 A.2d 588 (2005). Such allegations included the following: 'On January 21, 2019, the plaintiff caused a notice to be duly served on the defendants to quit possession of the premises on or before January 30, 2019, as required by law. The original notice to quit is attached hereto and marked [as] exhibit A.' As the trial court correctly observed, the affidavit of Stephen Gabriel, which was the only evidence that the defendants submitted in support of their motion to dismiss, did nothing to create a genuine dispute as to any pertinent jurisdictional fact. The affidavit merely acknowledges that Stephen Gabriel was in fact served and makes no statement based on any personal knowledge that the other defendants were not served. The averment in the affidavit stating that Stephen Gabriel received only one copy has little, if any, probative value, as only one copy of the notice to quit was necessary to effect service on him, and there was no representation made in the marshal's return of service that seven copies were left with Stephen Gabriel. Finally, and perhaps most notably, there was no affidavit or other documentation from any defendant to demonstrate that he or she had not been served in any manner. In light of the foregoing, the court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss. Because there was ample evidence to support the court's finding that the defendants were served with the notice to quit, the court properly denied the motion to dismiss.

The judgment is affirmed.")

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

AC41869 - State v. Pjura (Assault in second degree; larceny in sixth degree; "The defendant, John Pjura, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (1) and one count of larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125b. The defendant claims on appeal (1) that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim, and (2) that he was denied his right to a fair trial because the prosecutor committed improprieties during the trial by (a) attempting to place evidence of the defendant's postarrest silence before the jury, (b) arguing facts not in evidence, and (c) arguing to the jury that, in order to find the defendant not guilty, it would have to find that two eyewitnesses and the victim were lying. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC41869 Concurrence - State v. Pjura

AC42703 - State v. Anderson (Assault in first degree with firearm; assault of peace officer with firearm; self-defense; "The defendant, Lonnie Anderson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree by means of the discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5) and of assault of a peace officer by means of the discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c (a) (1); his sentence was enhanced pursuant to General Statutes § 53-202k. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly declined to instruct the jury on self-defense. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC42389 - Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.); foreclosure; whether plaintiff failed to adequately brief claim regarding foreclosure judgment; "The plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., after a jury trial on the plaintiff's complaint and a court trial on the defendant's counterclaim. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) granted the defendant’s March 15, 2017 motion in limine precluding evidence regarding a 2008 modification agreement (March 15 motion in limine), (2) granted the defendant’s March 16, 2017 motion in limine precluding evidence regarding government regulatory action taken against the defendant (March 16 motion in limine), and (3) denied the plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint.We dismiss the plaintiff’s first claim as moot because the plaintiff has not challenged both of the trial court’s bases for its evidentiary ruling.With regard to the plaintiff’s remaining claims, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20425 - Cole v. City of New Haven ("This appeal requires us to consider the limits of our recent decision in Borelli v. Renaldi, ___ Conn. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2020), with respect to whether applicable state and municipal policies render a police officer's acts during a pursuit of a motorist ministerial, rather than discretionary, for purposes of governmental immunity. The plaintiff, Amaadi Cole, brought this negligence action against the defendants, the city of New Haven (city) and one of its police officers, Nikki Curry, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained when Curry pulled her police cruiser directly into an oncoming traffic lane in which the plaintiff was traveling on his dirt bike, causing him to swerve and strike a tree. The plaintiff appeals from the granting of summary judgment by the trial court in favor of the defendants on the ground that they were entitled to governmental immunity for discretionary acts pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (2) (B). On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the trial court incorrectly determined that Curry's decision to drive her cruiser into the oncoming traffic lane was a discretionary act because her actions violated several policies that imposed ministerial duties regarding roadblocks, the operation of police vehicles, and pursuits. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

The 2020 edition of our research guide on Dog Law in Connecticut has been added to our research guides web page. There are sections on control of dogs, cruelty to dogs, dog injuries, dogs as service animals, dogs as pets, and comfort and support dogs as witnesses.

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

SC20278 - State v. Best ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence four photographs that depicted the bloody interior of a motor vehicle used to transport to the hospital two victims who were shot by the defendant, Durante D. Best. The defendant claims that the photographs were irrelevant to the criminal charges against him and that, even if relevant, their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial effect on the jury. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs and affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

The 2020 edition of the research guide on Paternity Actions in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 15, for October 13, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 226 - 299)
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 948 - 952)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 200: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 720 - 802)
• Volume 200: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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