The 2022 edition of our research guide on Rights of Minors has been posted to our research guides webpage.

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

AC44321 - Horrocks v. Keepers, Inc. (“This appeal stems from a dispute between the plaintiffs, Crystal Horrocks, Yaritza Reyes, Dina Danielle Caviello, Jacqueline Green, Sugeily Ortiz and Zuleyma Bella Lopez, and the defendants, Keepers, Inc., and Joseph Regensburger, as to the proper characterization of the plaintiffs as independent contractors, instead of employees, for services rendered as exotic dancers at a gentlemen’s club owned and operated by the defendants. The defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to vacate, and granting the plaintiffs’ application to confirm, arbitration awards finding that the plaintiffs were employees, not independent contractors, and awarding them damages. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• AC44321 Concurrence - Horrocks v. Keepers, Inc.

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44416 - Downing v. Dragone (“In this breach of contract action, the defendant Dragone Classic Motorcars, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Christine Downing. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found that a written contract existed between the parties and (2) admitted ‘‘hearsay evidence’’ on the issue of damages. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44506 - Laiuppa v. Moritz ("In this motor vehicle negligence action, the plaintiff, Paul Laiuppa, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Mary Moritz. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly determined that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the applicability of the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592, and (2) abused its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to reargue. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC44506 Concurrence - Laiuppa v. Moritz

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44833 - 10 Marietta Street, LLC v. Melnick Properties, LLC ("The plaintiff, 10 Marietta Street, LLC, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Melnick Properties, LLC, Kenneth Maratea, Ellen Maratea, and Kathleen Bednarcik. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that no genuine issue of material fact existed and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all thirty counts of the plaintiff's operative complaint, which seeks to hold the defendants responsible for environmental contamination of the plaintiff's property.We agree with the plaintiff that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether one or more of the defendants are legally responsible for the alleged contamination of the plaintiff's land and its groundwaters. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC44984 - Mazza v. Mazza ("The defendant, Samuel T. Mazza, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff, Wendy M. Mazza. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion for contempt and (2) ordered alternative relief concerning the defendant’s real property. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45388 - In re Lil'Patrick T. ("The respondent father, Lil’Patrick T., Sr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, P. On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court (1) incorrectly concluded that he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time, he could assume a responsible position in the life of P, (2) incorrectly determined that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of P and (3) failed to canvass him adequately concerning his right to testify on his own behalf. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20437 - State v. Johnson (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the admission of the testimony of a forensic biologist and a DNA analyst violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, (2) the state violated his due process rights by failing to correct the false or substantially misleading testimony of its witnesses, and (3) the use of the term ‘victim’ by the prosecutor and some of the state’s witnesses during the trial prejudiced him. We conclude that the defendant’s claims fail and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 17, for October 25, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 345: Connecticut Reports (Pages 174 - 219)
• Volume 345: Orders (Pages 913 - 913)
• Volume 345: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 216: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 126 - 240)
• Volume 216: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

The Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has recently published new research reports including:

• Legislation Limiting Investor Purchases of Residential Properties - 2022-R-0235 - Have any states enacted or considered legislation limiting private investors’ ability to purchase residential investment properties?
• OLR Backgrounder: Veterans' Property Tax Exemptions - 2022-R-0219 - Provides an overview of Connecticut’s veterans’ property tax exemptions. (This report updates and expands OLR Report 2021-R-0177.)
• The Income Spenddown Process in Connecticut's Medicaid Program - 2022-R-0136 - Summarizes the income spenddown process under Connecticut’s Medicaid program.
• Fixed Property Tax Assessments Under CGS 12-65b - 2022-R-0002 - Summarizes CGS § 12-65b, as amended by PA 22-72 (effective October 1, 2022), which allows municipalities to fix real property (including air space) tax assessments for a range of development projects.
• Difference Between a Town and City - 2022-R-0193 - In Connecticut, what is the difference between a town and city? If a town would like to convert to a city, must the General Assembly make the change via legislative action?

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

AC44790 - Metropolitan District Commission v. Marriott International, Inc. (“The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court, in ruling on the defendant's postjudgment motion, improperly ordered the discharge of its sewer benefit assessment lien, which the plaintiff argues exceeded the court's jurisdiction and constituted an "unlawful end run around § [7-250] . . . ." The defendant disagrees, contending that the court either had continuing jurisdiction to invalidate the lien as a means of effectuating its summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendant or that it properly acted pursuant to the statutory authority granted it by § 49-51. Alternatively, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's claim is barred by res judicata and/or judicial estoppel. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly ordered the sewer benefit assessment lien discharged and reject the defendant's arguments to the contrary. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the court and remand with direction to deny, in total, the defendant's postjudgment motion.”)

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

AC43761 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Rago ("This matter returns to us following our decision in U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Rago, 189 Conn. App. 902, 203 A.3d 718 (2019), in which this court, by memorandum decision, affirmed a judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for the C-BASS Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-MX1, and remanded the case 'for the purpose of setting new law days.' Id. The defendant Frank V. Rago now appeals from the trial court's subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure rendered, on remand, in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims, inter alia, that the court, in rendering the subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure, improperly exceeded the scope of the remand order in opening the judgment and making updated findings, sua sponte and without providing to the parties adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, with respect to the fair market value of the property and the amount of the debt at issue. We agree, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45020 - Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("This case returns to us following our decision in Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 200 Conn. App. 852, 241 A.3d 706 (2020), cert. denied, 336 Conn. 909, 244 A.3d 562 (2021), in which this court, inter alia, affirmed a judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., on its counterclaim seeking foreclosure, and remanded the case 'solely for the purpose of setting new law days.' Id., 869.The plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, now appeals from the trial court's subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure rendered, on remand, in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court, in rendering the subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure, erred in interpreting this court's remand order as prohibiting it from changing the nature of the judgment to a foreclosure by sale. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44278 - Moore v. Moore (Dissolution of marriage; postjudgment motion to modify alimony and child support; "The defendant, Justin Moore, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his postjudgment motion to modify the alimony and child support orders that were entered following the dissolution of his marriage to the self-represented plaintiff, Jennifer Moore. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court improperly denied his motion to modify these orders. We agree with the defendant that the court improperly denied his motion insofar as he sought a modification of the child support order and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court with respect to this claim and remand the case for a new hearing with respect to the motion to modify the child support order. With respect to the court's denial of the motion insofar as the defendant sought a modification of the alimony order, we affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC44703 - Hebrand v. Hebrand (Dissolution of marriage; whether trial court improperly denied defendant's motion to open and vacate prior trial court's postjudgment modification of plaintiff's alimony obligation; "The defendant, Annika Hebrand, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to open a 2017 postjudgment modification, following the 2013 dissolution of her marriage to the plaintiff, Karl Anders Hebrand. The defendant claims that (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, in 2017, to modify the dissolution judgment, and (2) the court, in 2020, improperly failed to find fraud in denying her motion to open. Additionally, the defendant set forth a myriad of other claims in support of her efforts to reverse the denial of her motion to open. The plaintiff counters, inter alia, that the defendant's jurisdictional claim is without merit, the court properly determined that the defendant failed to prove her allegations of fraud, and the remainder of her claims are without merit. We agree with the plaintiff, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the motion to open.")

AC44914 - Delena v. Grachitorena (Petition for visitation; whether trial court erred in denying petition for visitation with minor grandchildren pursuant to statute (§ 46b-59); "The plaintiff, Diane Delena, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her petition for visitation with her two minor grandchildren (children) brought pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-59. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in denying her petition for visitation in that the court improperly applied the factors set forth under § 46b-59 when it determined that the plaintiff did not meet her burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she has a parent-like relationship with the children. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44171 - Ayuso v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner, Jose Ayuso, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States constitution. The gravamen of the petitioner’s deliberate indifference claim is that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, is providing inadequate medical treatment for the petitioner’s back pain and for a lump on his inner thigh, including by not providing the petitioner with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and back surgery.”)

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

AC42742 - Randolph v. Mambrino (Petition for new trial; summary judgment; "The self-represented petitioner, Gordon Randolph, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the respondents, Donna Mambrino and the state of Connecticut, and its subsequent dismissal of his petition for a new trial. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that General Statutes § 52-595, which provides for the tolling of the statute of limitations applicable to a particular cause of action upon proof by the party bringing the action that the defendant fraudulently concealed the existence of the cause of action, does not toll the three year limitation period of General Statutes § 52-582 applicable to petitions for a new trial brought under General Statutes § 52-270. We agree with the petitioner that the trial court incorrectly determined that § 52-595 does not apply to § 52-582. We also conclude, however, that the respondents are entitled to summary judgment because the petitioner, who alleges that the respondents intentionally concealed exculpatory evidence from him in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), has failed to demonstrate that the facts, viewed most favorably to sustaining his claim under § 52-595, are sufficient to satisfy the stringent requirements of that tolling provision. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

Wednesday, October 19th

• Rockville Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.

Thursday, October 20th

• New Britain Law Library is closed.
• New Haven Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.

Friday, October 21st

• New Britain Law Library is closed from 12:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is closed from 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20571 - Seramonte Associates, LLC v. Hamden ("The sole question in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 12-63c (a), which requires the owners of certain rental property to 'submit' income and expense information to their municipal tax assessor 'not later than the first day of June,' is satisfied when that information is postmarked but not delivered by that date. The plaintiff, Seramonte Associates, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the town of Hamden. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court erred in determining that the word "submit" in § 12-63c (a) unambiguously requires that an assessor receive income and expense forms by June 1. We agree with the Appellate Court's construction of the relevant statutory text and, accordingly, affirm its judgment.")

• SC20571 Concurrence - Seramonte Associates, LLC v. Hamden

SC20665 - Dowling v. Heirs of Bond ("This appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land that abuts property owned by the plaintiff, Jane C. Dowling, and to which the defendant The Old Black Point Association, Inc., holds record title. The plaintiff brought this quiet title action against the defendant, contending that her predecessors in title had acquired fee ownership of the disputed parcel by adverse possession. The defendant filed a counterclaim, alleging, among other things, that the plaintiff had slandered its title to the parcel under General Statutes § 47-33j by filing a notice of her claim of adverse possession on the land records. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish her claim of adverse possession and that the defendant had prevailed on its counterclaim and rendered judgment accordingly. After a subsequent hearing in damages, the trial court awarded $338,542.50 in attorney's fees and $44,876.33 in costs to the defendant. This appeal followed.

We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff had failed to establish ownership of the parcel by adverse possession but that it incorrectly determined that the defendant had established its counterclaim for slander of title. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's quiet title action and reverse the judgment in favor of the defendant on its counterclaim for slander of title.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 16, for October 18, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 345: Connecticut Reports (Pages 44 - 174)
• Volume 345: Orders (Pages 907 - 912)
• Volume 345: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 215: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 758 - 875)
• Volume 215: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 903)
• Volume 215: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 216: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 126)
• Volume 216: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

AC44393 - DAB Three, LLC v. Fitzpatrick

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

AC44258 - Donald v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner contends that the habeas court improperly rejected his claims that (1) the state violated his due process right to a fair trial in the underlying criminal trial by (a) knowingly presenting false or misleading testimony to the jury concerning the details of its agreement with one of his alleged accomplices, Tierais Harris, to testify against him in that trial and (b) failing to disclose material evidence to him, for his use in that trial, concerning the credibility of two of the state’s witnesses, both his alleged accomplice, Harris, and the lead detective in the case, Reginald Early, who testified to the petitioner’s alleged confession to participating in the armed robbery and shootings on which the charged offenses were based; and (2) his trial counsel in the underlying criminal trial, J. Patten Brown III, rendered ineffective assistance in connection with the petitioner’s sentencing after that trial by failing to present an effective argument urging leniency on the petitioner’s behalf and failing to support such an argument by developing and presenting to the trial court any of the extensive mitigating information about the petitioner’s troubled background and upbringing to which he and his expert witness, Jodi DeSauteles, a social worker employed by the public defender’s office, later testified at the habeas trial. Although we conclude that the petitioner failed to establish either of his due process claims, we agree with the petitioner that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with his sentencing and that he was prejudiced by such ineffective assistance with respect to his current total effective sentence, which was later imposed on him by order of the Sentence Review Division of the Superior Court (review division) after it determined that his original total effective sentence was disproportionate and should be reduced by thirty years of imprisonment to remedy its disproportionality. Accordingly, we affirm the habeas court’s judgment insofar as it rejects the petitioner’s due process claims but reverse that judgment insofar as it rejects his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and remand the case to the habeas court with direction to vacate his modified total effective sentence in the underlying criminal case and to remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.”)

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