SC20287 - Mitchell v. State (Petition for new trial; Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's late § 54-95 (a) petition for certification to appeal from ruling denying petition for new trial."The petitioner, James A. Mitchell, appealed from the trial court's denial of his request for leave to file a late petition for certification to appeal from the court's judgment denying his petition for a new criminal trial on the ground that the petitioner's claims were "meritless and too late." The Appellate Court rejected the petitioner's claim that the trial court improperly considered the merits of the petition, rather than the reasons for the delay or any other factors relevant to permitting a late filing, and dismissed the appeal. See Mitchell v. State, 188 Conn. App. 245, 247, 204 A.3d 807 (2019). We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to engage in the proper analysis to determine whether to excuse the late petition for certification. We further conclude, however, that the trial court acted within its discretion when it determined that the petition did not raise issues warranting certification and, therefore, affirm the Appellate Court's judgment dismissing the petitioner's appeal on this alternative basis.")

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

AC43719 - Bank of New York Mellon v. Madison ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants Russell M. Madison and Margit Madison appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee, on its amended two count complaint asserting claims for foreclosure and reformation of the mortgage. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly granted (1) the plaintiff's oral motion for judgment on its reformation claim when the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence in support thereof and (2) the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only on its foreclosure claim when the plaintiff failed to establish that the default notice that it had mailed to the defendants complied with the notice requirements of the mortgage. We reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43568 - U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Moncho ("The defendants Lee Moncho and Karen Moncho appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, Trustee, as successor in interest to Wachovia Bank, N.A., as Trustee for JPMorgan 2005-A7. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred by (1) refusing to deem all of the defendants' special defenses as admitted when the plaintiff failed to reply to them prior to trial, (2) concluding that the plaintiff had standing and was entitled to enforce the note, (3) rejecting the defendants' five special defenses, and (4) improperly admitting evidence concerning the payment history of the note as a business record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43272 - Sieranski v. TJC Esq, A Professional Services Corp. (The plaintiff, Helen Sieranski, brought a three count complaint against her former employer, the defendant, TJC Esq, A Professional Services Corporation, seeking damages for wrongful termination, pregnancy discrimination, and gender discrimination (original complaint). The court granted the defendant's motion to strike the first count of the original complaint, in which the plaintiff alleged common-law wrongful termination in violation of the public policy outlined in General Statutes §§ 3-94h and 53a-157b. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a revised complaint alleging, in one count, pregnancy discrimination. After the court rendered summary judgment as to that count, the plaintiff brought the present appeal in which she challenges the court's judgment striking count one of her original complaint. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42713 Donald G. v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that his right to effective assistance of counsel had been violated because his trial counsel (1) neglected to present testimony regarding the petitioner’s whereabouts for one of the nights in question, (2) referenced the complainant as the ‘victim’ and failed to object or to request a curative instruction when the prosecutor also referred to the complainant as the ‘victim,’ and (3) failed to investigate properly an incident of uncharged misconduct. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC44298 - Ricketts v. Ricketts ("The marriage between the plaintiff, Robert Alexander Ricketts, and the defendant, Janelle R. Ricketts (now known as Janelle R. Mallett), was dissolved in 2018. The plaintiff appeals from the September 17, 2020 orders of the trial court, Nguyen-O'Dowd, J., denying his postjudgment motion to 'transfer [this matter] to the Regional Family Trial Docket in accordance with the [parties'] divorce decree' and appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the parties' minor children. On November 13, 2020, this court ordered, sua sponte, that the parties file memoranda giving reasons, if any, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of an appealable judgment. On December 16, 2020, we dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and indicated in our order that an opinion would follow. This opinion elucidates our conclusion that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the propriety of these postjudgment orders at this time.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Judicial Branch has announced the resumption of mediation in cases in the Foreclosure Mediation Program. See the complete notice here:

02/25/21 -- Notice of resumption of mediation in cases in the Foreclosure Mediation Program involving non-federally backed mortgagesNotice of resumption of mediation in cases in the Foreclosure Mediation Program involving non-federally backed mortgages

Note also the associated standing order: Foreclosure Mediation Standing Order-Resumption of Mediations.

• Posted in:
• FYI

The 2021 Connecticut Practice Book contains an Appendix of Section 1-9B Changes: Practice Book Rules Adopted, Amended or Suspended Under Section 1-9B in Light of the Declared Public Health and Civil Preparedness Emergencies:

On March 10, 2020, Governor Lamont declared a public health emergency and a civil preparedness emergency. Those states of emergency were renewed by Governor Lamont on September1, 2020. On March 24, 2020, and May 11, 2020, the Rules Committee of the Superior Court met pursuant to its emergency authority in Section 1-9B and adopted, amended, or suspended various rules that the committee deemed necessary in light of those declared emergencies. On June 26,2020, the judges of the Superior Court considered the actions taken by the Rules Committee and adopted the changes set forth herein. A copy of these changes was promulgated in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 14, 2020.
...
NOTE CONCERNING STATUS OF APPENDIX: This appendix reflects the status of rules that were adopted, amended, or suspended as of July 14, 2020, the date of publication in the Connecticut Law Journal. Subsequent to that publication, some of these provisions have changed due to the fluid nature of the public health emergency and the civil preparedness emergency. The reader is cautioned to refer to www.jud.ct.gov, www.jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm and www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm for the current status of the provisions contained in this appendix.

See also the Covid-19 Updates, Frequently Asked Questions – COVID-19 and Court Business, and Connecticut Practice Book web pages.

• Posted in:
• Court Rules,
• FYI

The 2021 edition of the research guide on Pleadings and Motion Practice in Family Matters has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

AC44186 - In re Miyuki M. (“On appeal, the respondent claims that (1) the court’s failure to canvass her regarding her written stipulation of facts violates her right to due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, constitutes plain error, and requires the exercise of our supervisory authority, and (2) the court erred in denying her motion to transfer guardianship of her child to the child’s maternal grandmother. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

We are currently experiencing a technical issue with our NewsLog daily email subscriptions, and our daily emails are not being sent to our subscribers. We hope to have this issue resolved soon. Subscribers to the NewsLog do not need to resubscribe. NewsLog emails should begin again for subscribers in the next few days or early next week.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 34, for February 23, 2021 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 336: Connecticut Reports (Pages 194 - 218)
• Volume 336: Orders (Pages 915 - 915)
• Volume 336: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 202: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 628 - 826)
• Volume 202: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 907)
• Volume 202: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC44060 - In re Phoenix A. (Reasonable efforts prong of § 17a-112 (j) (1); claim of failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation; “On appeal, the respondent claims that the court erred by (1) finding that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, (2) finding that he had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation, and (3) determining that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of Phoenix. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Legislative Commissioners' Office has published its reference table listing General Statutes Amended or Repealed in 2020. This table can be used to check whether a statute has been affected by 2020 legislation. The reference tables for 2020 are listed below:

• General Statutes Amended or Repealed in 2020
• Public Acts Enacted in 2020 (by bill number)
• Public Acts Amended or Repealed in 2020

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• New Legislation

AC42383 - Deleo v. Equale & Cirone, LLP ("The defendants, Equale & Cirone, LLP (partnership), and Anthony W. Cirone, Jr., appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Derek J. DeLeo, on the defendants' counterclaim for damages under the noncompete provision of the parties' partnership agreement (noncompete provision). The defendants claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the noncompete provision constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade and, therefore, is unenforceable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42685 - Fronsaglia v. Fronsaglia ("The defendant, Benigno Fronsaglia, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Lisa Fronsaglia. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in fashioning its financial orders by making a grossly disproportionate property distribution in the plaintiff's favor and by assigning the majority of the marital debt to him, (2) erred by basing its orders on the defendant's assumed earning capacity of $160,000, where no evidence existed to support the earning capacity determined by the court, (3) erred in basing its alimony award on gross income rather than net income, when there was no evidence to support a net income based on the defendant's assumed gross income, and (4) abused its discretion by awarding alimony to the plaintiff to punish the defendant for his purported misdeeds. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43052 - MSW Associates, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Dept. ("This zoning appeal concerns the conflict that sometimes arises between the state's authority to regulate solid waste management and a municipality's right to regulate the structures and land use within its borders. The plaintiff, MSW Associates, LLC, filed a site plan application (site plan) to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station and volume reduction plant in Danbury (city) that was denied by the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Department of the City of Danbury. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8. The Superior Court sustained the plaintiff's appeal. Thereafter, this court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal.

On appeal before us, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by (1) construing General Statutes § 22a-208b (b) to require it to approve the site plan even though the use is prohibited in the IG-80 zone in which it was proposed and when the city's zoning regulations (regulations) permit other types of solid waste facilities at other locations in the city, (2) ruling that the regulations 'have the effect of prohibiting the construction, alteration or operation of solid waste facilities within the limits' of the city and thus violate § 22a-208b (b), (3) refusing to invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to remand the case to the city's zoning commission, and (4) disregarding the language of § 22a-208b (b) that '[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the right of a municipality to regulate, through zoning, land usage for an existing or new solid waste facility,' and by ordering it to approve the site plan in a particular location and zone, thereby usurping the legislative authority of the zoning commission. The defendant also claims that the plaintiff lacks standing to claim a violation of § 22a-208b (b) on the basis of allegations that the regulations fail to allow solid waste facilities other than the specific subtype of facility that it seeks to construct on its property. We agree with the court that the plain language of § 22a-208b (b) bars zoning regulations from having the effect, as the city's do, of prohibiting construction of solid waste facilities of any type within its borders. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC43500 - State v. Sayles (Felony murder; conspiracy to commit robbery in first degree; criminal possession of pistol or revolver; carrying pistol without permit; motion to suppress; "The defendant, Dwayne Sayles, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-134 (a) (2), criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217c and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motions to suppress certain evidence. Specifically, he contends that (1) police detectives violated his Miranda rights and his rights pursuant to article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution when they continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to counsel, (2) the police detectives seized his cell phone in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution, and (3) the affidavit that the police submitted in support of their application for a warrant to search the contents of his cell phone contained materially false information. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

AC42890 - Godfrey v. Commissioner of Correction (Common-law contractual ‘‘frustration of purpose’’ doctrine; Whether a defendant “…who had been charged with a capital felony and pleaded guilty to murder in order to avoid the imposition of the death penalty is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea sixteen years later because the death penalty has since been abolished. We conclude that, even if the frustration of purpose doctrine applies to criminal plea agreements, the petitioner, Robert C. Godfrey, is not entitled to relief under that doctrine because by entering into the plea agreement, he assumed the risk that the death penalty might be abolished at some point while he was serving his sentence of sixty years of incarceration.”)

AC42785 - Collins v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) determined that his conflict of interest claim was procedurally defaulted and that, in any event, his trial counsel did not have a conflict of interest and (2) denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC42475 - Commissioner of Public Health v. Colandrea ("The defendant, Anthony Colandrea, a dentist, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying in part his motion to vacate a prior contempt judgment stemming from his noncompliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the plaintiff, the Commissioner of Public Health, for certain records of his dental practice. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) erred in finding that his noncompliance was wilful, (2) improperly awarded attorney's fees on the basis of wilful noncompliance, and (3) violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches when it issued an order permitting the plaintiff to search the office of his dental practice without a finding of probable cause or a valid search warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions

AC44079 - In re Kameron N.. (Termination of rights; “…whether the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (tribe) received proper notice, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., of the termination of parental rights proceedings involving the child, who is enrollable as a member of the tribe. We reject the claim of the respondent that the tribe did not receive adequate notice of the termination proceedings and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC44086 - In re Kameron N. (“On appeal, she claims that (1) the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (tribe) did not receive proper notice, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., of the termination of parental rights proceedings involving the child, who is enrollable as a member of the tribe, (2) the trial court erred in denying her motion to open the evidence ‘‘for the purpose of introducing new evidence, which was discovered after the close of evidence, regarding placement of the child,’’ and (3) the trial court erred in finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions