AC44975 - CCI Computerworks, LLC v. Evernet Consulting, LLC (“The defendant, Evernet Consulting, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, CCI Computerworks, LLC, on the defendant’s counterclaim asserting claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and indemnification. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the agreement executed by the parties attributed liability to the defendant, rather than to the plaintiff, for unemployment taxes, plus interest and penalties, assessed on the defendant by the Department of Labor (department), or (2) in the alternative, the plaintiff was not unjustly enriched by the defendant’s payment of the unemployment taxes, interest, and penalties. We conclude that the court properly rendered judgment in the plaintiff’s favor on the defendant’s counterclaim. In addition, the plaintiff cross appeals from the judgment of the court rendered in its favor on count one of its second amended complaint asserting breach of contract. On cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied its motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of a settlement offer, (2) admitted the settlement evidence in full into the record, (3) relied on the settlement evidence to conclude that it had failed to mitigate its damages, and (4) failed to adjudicate its claim that the defendant breached the parties’ agreement by crediting certain costs against the payments that the defendant owed pursuant to the agreement. We agree with the plaintiff’s claims of error regarding the settlement evidence, but we disagree with the plaintiff’s contention that the court overlooked one of its claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court rendered on the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and we affirm the judgment in all other respects.”)

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

AC45109 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof ("This foreclosure action returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court. In our prior opinion, this court rejected the various claims raised by the defendants, Roger Essaghof and Katherine Marr-Essaghof, who had appealed from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, to reset the law days in accordance with a previous remand order of our Supreme Court. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, 217 Conn. App. 93, 95, 287 A.3d 1124 (2022), vacated, 346 Conn. 909, 288 A.3d 1031 (2023). The defendants thereafter filed a petition for certification with the Supreme Court, in which they challenged only this court’s conclusion that the trial court properly had denied their motion to dismiss predicated on the plaintiff’s alleged noncompliance with the notice requirement of the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP) set forth in General Statutes § 8- 265ee (a).

By order dated February 16, 2023, our Supreme Court granted that petition, vacated the judgment of this court, and remanded the case to us ‘with direction to reconsider in light of [its] decision in Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope, 345 Conn. 662, 286 A.3d 891 (2022).’ See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, 346 Conn. 909, 288 A.3d 1031 (2023). This court then ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the impact of that decision on the present appeal and heard argument from the parties on April 25, 2023. On August 1, 2023, our Supreme Court released its decision in KeyBank, N.A. v. Yazar, 347 Conn. 381, 297 A.3d 968 (2023), which concerns the proper statutory construction of the EMAP notice requirement codified in § 8- 265ee (a). Accordingly, this court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the impact of KeyBank, N.A. v. Yazar, supra, 381, on this appeal. Having considered the defendants’ claim in light of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20686 - Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission ("This appeal presents the issue whether a police report created by the police department at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital (Whiting) is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq. The police report at issue documented the police department's investigation into the death of a patient at Whiting after a medical event. The named defendant, the Freedom of Information Commission (commission), appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which ordered the disclosure of a redacted version of the police report under FOIA, claiming that the report should be released in its entirety because it is not exempt from disclosure by (1) the psychiatrist-patient communications privilege codified at General Statutes §§ 52-146d (2) and 52-146e (a), or (2) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq., as implemented by the Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 160.101 et seq. The plaintiffs, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services and the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), disagree and cross appeal, claiming that the police report should not be released at all, even in redacted form, because it is protected by the psychiatrist-patient communications privilege and HIPAA.

We conclude that the police report is not a communication or record, as those terms are used in § 52-146e (a), and, therefore, is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Nonetheless, the police report includes information that would identify a patient at Whiting, even though such information specifically was excluded from the FOIA request, and the report therefore should be redacted in the manner described in part III A 2 of this opinion. Because the police report, with minimal redaction, must be disclosed pursuant to FOIA, we further conclude that it is not protected from disclosure by HIPAA and its implementing Privacy Rule. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• SC20686 - Concurrence & Dissent
• SC20686 - Dissent

• Posted in:
• Freedom of Information Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 9, for August 29, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 347: Connecticut Reports (Pages 648 - 757)
• Volume 347: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 221: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 387 - 474)
• Volume 221: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC20693 - State v. James K. (“On appeal to this court, the defendant asserts that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court did not (1) improperly limit defense counsel’s questions to potential jurors and that this limitation did not result in harmful prejudice, and (2) improperly admit into evidence a video recording of the forensic interview of the victim regarding the crimes at issue. We disagree and conclude that, even if the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s questions to potential jurors, any error did not result in harmful prejudice, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the video recording of the forensic interview into evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

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

AC45274 - Fraser Lane Associates, LLC v. Chip Fund 7, LLC . (The defendant, Chip Fund 7, LLC, appeals from the judgments of the trial court confirming an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, Fraser Lane Associates, LLC, and denying the defendant’s application to vacate an arbitration award. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred because (1) the arbitration award violates public policy, (2) the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the arbitration agreement, and (3) the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45036 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Amelio ("The defendant Carmine Amelio appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A6 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-F. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion for an order to allow inspection of the original promissory note in accordance with Practice Book § 23-18. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45645 - Miriam v. Summit Saugatuck, LLC ("In this action to enforce a restrictive covenant, the plaintiffs Selma Miriam and Leslie Ogilvy appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court following its granting of a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Summit Saugatuck, LLC, and denial of their motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined, as a matter of law, that a common plan of development does not exist for certain lots of real property located within the historic Saugatuck neighborhood area of Westport, where both plaintiffs reside. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Land Use Law,
• Property Law

AC46140 - In re Judah B. (“The respondent mother, Amanda B., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to her minor children, Judah, Angelika, Malachi, and Moses. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court erred in concluding that (1) the respondent failed to rehabilitate, (2) the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, and (3) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with the children. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 8, for August 22, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 347: Connecticut Reports (Pages 601 - 648)
• Volume 347: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 221: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 185 - 386)
• Volume 221: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

Friday, August 25th

• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library is closed.

Monday, August 28th

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed from 1:15 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, August 29th

• Rockville Law Library closes at 11:45 a.m.
• Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, August 30th

• Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, August 31st

• Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed from 10:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
• Stamford Law Library will open at 10:30 a.m.

Friday, September 1st

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• New Britain Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20723 - State v. Avoletta ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether No. 17-4, § 1, of the 2017 Special Acts (S.A. 17-4) is an unconstitutional public emolument in violation of article first, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution. The defendants, Joanne Avoletta, Peter Avoletta, and Matthew Avoletta, appeal, upon our grant of their petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the state of Connecticut. See State v. Avoletta, 212 Conn. App. 309, 312, 339, 275 A.3d 716 (2022). On appeal, the defendants claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that S.A. 17-4, pursuant to which the General Assembly extended the time limitation under General Statutes § 4-148 for the defendants to bring their claim against the state for injuries arising from poor indoor air quality at certain public schools, constitutes an unconstitutional public emolument because it does not serve a legitimate public purpose. We disagree with the defendants and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44836, AC45267 - Barbara v. Colonial Surety Co. ("In Docket No. AC 44836, Colonial appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment in the Barbaras’ action, in which it asserted that the Barbaras’ claims were precluded pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. In Docket No. AC 45267, the Barbaras appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of Colonial’s motion for summary judgment in the indemnity action. On appeal, Colonial claims that the court improperly concluded that the Barbaras’ action is not precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, and the Barbaras claim that the court improperly concluded that they failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to their allegations that Colonial acted in bad faith in settling the New York action. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

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

AC45318 - AAA Advantage Carting & Demolition Service, LLC v. Capone ("The defendant, Joseph Capone, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, AAA Advantage Carting & Demolition Service, LLC, on its amended complaint asserting claims of (1) conversion and (2) statutory theft in violation of General Statutes § 52-564. The defendant claims that the court (1) improperly concluded that two savings statutes, General Statutes § 52-591 and/or General Statutes § 52-592, applied to save the present action from being time barred pursuant to the three year limitation period of General Statutes § 52-577, (2) improperly concluded that the plaintiff's claims were not barred pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, (3) made a clearly erroneous factual finding in concluding that the defendant had committed statutory theft, and (4) erred in awarding damages, including prejudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a, to the plaintiff. We conclude that the trial court committed error only with respect to its award of damages to the plaintiff and, therefore, we reverse the judgment as to damages only.")

AC45354 - Hughes v. Board of Education ("The plaintiffs, Naionna Hughes and her mother, Juanita Jones,1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, the Board of Education of the City of Waterbury (board), the city of Waterbury (city), Irena Varecka, and Jessica Giorgi. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to strike their complaint on the ground of governmental immunity. More specifically, they contend that the court improperly concluded that the identifiable victim subject to imminent harm exception to governmental immunity did not apply. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45442 - Williams v. Commisioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) improperly concluded that certain undisclosed impeachment evidence was not material under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and (3) improperly concluded that the petitioner failed to prove that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. We agree with the petitioner’s first two claims, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

SC20772 - Escobar-Santana v. State ("General Statutes § 4-160 (f) waives the state's sovereign immunity with respect to qualified medical malpractice actions and allows such actions to proceed against the state without the need for prior authorization from the Claims Commissioner. The statute also expressly provides that "[a]ny such action shall be limited to medical malpractice claims only . . . ." General Statutes § 4-160 (f). The primary question presented by this interlocutory appeal is whether the statutory phrase "medical malpractice claims" is broad enough to encompass a mother's allegation that she suffered emotional distress damages from physical injuries to her child that were proximately caused by the negligence of health care professionals during the birthing process. We hold that claims alleging such damages can qualify as medical malpractice claims for purposes of § 4-160 (f). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion of the defendant, the state of Connecticut, to dismiss the second count of the complaint of the plaintiffs, Celine Escobar-Santana (Escobar-Santana) and her son, Emmett Escobar-Santana (Emmett), because the plaintiffs alleged a valid medical malpractice claim in that count.")

• SC20772 Concurrence - Escobar-Santana v. State

• Posted in:
• Medical Malpractice Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45100 - Anderson-Harris v. Harris (Divorce, "In this appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly rendered judgment in the dissolution action before court-ordered evaluations were completed, (2) the court abused its discretion in issuing certain financial orders, including those related to child support and alimony, and (3) a new trial is necessary because she was unable to provide an adequate record for appellate review as a result of the retirement of the trial judge. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45864 - In re Christina C. (“The petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, appeals from the judgment of the trial court (1) granting the motion of the respondent father, Christopher C., to transfer legal guardianship of his biological daughter, C, from the petitioner to his mother, D, and (2) denying the petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondent with respect to C. The petitioner claims that, in granting the motion to transfer guardianship, the court erred as a matter of law by assuming that transferring guardianship was in C’s best interests, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner to demonstrate that granting the motion would be detrimental to C. The petitioner also claims that, having found that multiple grounds existed for terminating the respondent’s parental rights with respect to C, the court thereafter erred in denying the petition to terminate his parental rights without considering whether that ruling was in C’s best interests. We agree with both of the petitioner’s claims and therefore reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 7, for August 15, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 347: Connecticut Reports (Pages 524 - 601)
• Volume 347: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 221: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 59 - 184)
• Volume 221: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Assignment of Judges
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

Monday, August 21st

• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Tuesday, August 22nd

• Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.

Wednesday, August 23rd

• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.

Thursday, August 24th

• Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Friday, August 25th

• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices