AC45057 - Glory Chapel International Cathedral v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Glory Chapel International Cathedral (Glory Chapel), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (Philadelphia Indemnity), striking all counts of Glory Chapel's complaint against Philadelphia Indemnity. On appeal, Glory Chapel claims that (1) the court erred in striking its original complaint on the basis of misjoinder, (2) even if the claims in its original complaint were properly stricken, the court erred by rejecting the substitute complaint that it filed pursuant to Practice Book § 10-44, and (3) the court erred by sustaining Philadelphia Indemnity's objection to an offer of compromise that Glory Chapel filed during the pendency of this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Glory Chapel on its second claim that the trial court improperly rejected its substitute complaint, but we disagree with it on its other claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45600 - Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co. ("The issue at the core of this appeal is, in the context of a dispute regarding insurance coverage for business losses suffered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, whether the operative complaint contained sufficient allegations to withstand a motion to strike pursuant to Practice Book § 10-39. The plaintiff, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Factory Mutual Insurance Company, following the partial granting of its motion to strike and the subsequent withdrawal of the remaining claims set forth in the plaintiff's operative complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly concluded that a policy exclusion for contamination caused by a virus applied to the majority of its claims for coverage and (2) our Supreme Court's decisions in Connecticut Dermatology Group, PC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 346 Conn. 33, 288 A.3d 187 (2023) (CT Dermatology), and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Moda, LLC, 346 Conn. 64, 288 A.3d 206 (2023) (Moda), both of which were released subsequent to the trial court's decision in the present case, do not provide an alternative basis to affirm the trial court's granting of the motion to strike. We disagree with both of the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC45433 - Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc., appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Arbella Protection Insurance Company. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that, pursuant to a commercial general liability policy, the defendant had no duty to defend the plaintiff against a counterclaim filed by a third party in an action arising out of a contract for the construction of a modular home. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

The 2024 edition of the research guide on Parental Kidnapping and Custodial Interference has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

AC46906 - State v. Roberts (Carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of § 29-35 (a); “The defendant claims that his conviction for this offense should be vacated ‘[i]n light of’ the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022). Specifically, he argues that the firearm permitting laws in Connecticut place on him an unconstitutional burden that violates his right to bear arms under the second amendment to the United States constitution and subject him to disparate treatment as a non-Connecticut resident (nonresident), in violation of the privileges and immunities clause set forth in article four, § 2, clause 1 of the United States constitution.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 39, for March 26, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 669 - 726)
• Volume 348: Orders (Pages 958 - 959)
• Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 345 - 428)
• Volume 224: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 903)
• Volume 224: 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

SC20575 - State v. Sayles (“On appeal, the defendant raises numerous constitutional challenges to the decision of the Appellate Court upholding the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence of his cell phone and its stored data. We, however, need not address the merits of the defendant’s various constitutional claims because we conclude that any error in the admission of the contents of the defendant’s cell phone was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Dissent

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

AC46942 - Black Rock Gardens, LLC v. Berry ("The defendant, Henry Berry, appeals from the trial court's denial of a special motion to dismiss that he filed pursuant to Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute, General Statutes § 52-196a, in a summary process action brought against him by the plaintiff, Black Rock Gardens, LLC. Before this court is the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's appeal in which the plaintiff claims that the defendant has not appealed from a final judgment. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the defendant has failed to assert a colorable claim to the protections afforded by the anti-SLAPP statute and, consequently, pursuant to Smith v. Supple, 346 Conn. 928, 952, 293 A.3d 851 (2023), this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the plaintiff and dismiss the defendant's appeal.")

AC45702 - 111 Clearview Drive, LLC v. Patrick ("In this summary process action, the defendants Lois Patrick, Justin Patrick, and Julian Patrick appeal from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, 111 Clearview Drive, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion in limine, which precluded them from presenting certain evidence to support their claim that Lois was an omitted party in the related foreclosure action of Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd. v. Roundtree, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-16-6059553-S (Benchmark action and/or Benchmark judgment), and thus maintained a legitimate and legally viable interest in the property in question. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC45450 - Patrick v. 111 Clearview Drive, LLC (Quiet title; "This appeal arises from the dismissal of a quiet title action. The plaintiff, Lois Patrick, initiated the action against the defendant 111 Clearview Drive, LLC, alleging that she has an interest in certain real property located in Bridgeport, as to which the defendant holds title. After a hearing on the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's amended complaint, the trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after determining, sua sponte, that the plaintiff was making an improper collateral attack on a prior judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the quiet title action because the plaintiff was collaterally attacking an underlying foreclosure action, and (2) failed to adjudicate whether the plaintiff may be considered an omitted party under General Statutes § 49-30. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45261 - McDonnell v. Roberts ("In this action, the plaintiff, Patricia A. McDonnell, appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion to open and set aside the judgment of nonsuit rendered in favor of the defendants, Norman A. Roberts II, the Law Offices of Norman A. Roberts, LLC, and GraberRoberts, LLC. The plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to open and set aside the judgment of nonsuit on the grounds that the court erred in finding that she failed to show that a good cause of action existed at the time of the judgment of nonsuit and that she was prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause from prosecuting the action. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Legal Malpractice & Attorney Discipline Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46164 - Rios v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent first claims that the court improperly concluded that the amended administrative directive at issue was subject to ex post facto scrutiny because it constitutes a law within the meaning of that clause. The respondent also argues, in the alternative, that, even if the amended administrative directive were subject to scrutiny under the ex post facto clause because it constitutes a law within the meaning of that clause, the court nonetheless improperly concluded that the application of the amended administrative directive to the petitioner violated the ex post facto clause prohibition. We agree with the respondent’s first argument and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC 46679 - In re Josyah L.-T. ("The respondent, Celina T., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Josyah L.-T. (Josyah). The respondent, who is self-represented in this appeal, asserts that this court should recognize her right to be the legal guardian of Josyah because she would be a better caregiver to him than the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families. Because the respondent has failed to identify any cognizable claim of error in relation to the court’s decision terminating her parental rights as to Josyah, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 38, for March 19, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 648 - 669)
Volume 348: Orders (Pages 955 - 957)
Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 237 - 344)
Volume 224: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 903)
Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.

Monday, March 25th

• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Tuesday, March 26th

• New Haven Law Library is closing at 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, March 27th

• Hartford Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Thursday, March 28th

• Hartford Law Library is closed from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Friday, March 29th

• All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC46091 - Bartolotta v. Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc. (“The plaintiff, Alyssa Bartolotta, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc., in this employment discrimination action. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all four counts of her complaint. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46927 - Torrington v. Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 442 (“This appeal presents a matter of first impression: whether a judgment of the Superior Court vacating an arbitration award and remanding the matter for a new arbitration hearing is a final judgment for purposes of an appeal pursuant to applicable statutes governing arbitration proceedings and municipal collective bargaining. We conclude that the defendants, Gerald Peters (Peters) and Council 4, AFSCME, AFLCIO, Local 442 (union), have appealed from a final judgment in this case and, accordingly, deny the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the city of Torrington (city).”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45807 - Rodriguez v. Hartford ("The plaintiff, Carmen Rodriguez, as parent and next friend of her minor son, Christopher Rodriguez (Christopher), appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, the city of Hartford (city) and Heather Dionne, the city forester, in this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Christopher when a tree fell on him while he was playing at a basketball court located in a city park. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by (1) denying her requests to amend her complaint and (2) concluding that her complaint did not set forth a claim of public nuisance and that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether her claims against the defendants were barred by governmental immunity. We conclude that the court properly rendered summary judgment as to the plaintiff's negligence claims but that the court erred in denying one of the plaintiff's requests to amend her complaint. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45982 - Delgado v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his criminal trial counsel, Attorney Kimberly Graham, and his appellate counsel, Attorney Theresa M. Dalton, did not render ineffective assistance during the criminal proceedings underlying his conviction or in the direct appeal from his conviction, respectively, a conclusion that necessarily defeated the petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel directed at his second habeas counsel, Attorney Laljeebhai R. Patel. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

SC20688 - State v. Henderson (“In this direct appeal, the defendant, Lawrence Lee Henderson, asks us (1) to reexamine our decision in State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558, 973 A.2d 1254 (2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 911, 130 S. Ct. 1296, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1086 (2010), holding that consistency in verdicts is immaterial and legally inconsistent verdicts are therefore not reviewable on appeal, and (2) to hold that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to declare a mistrial when he contracted COVID-19, which resulted in a twenty-five day interruption in jury deliberations. More specifically, the defendant first argues that we should overrule or modify Arroyo because the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of home invasion, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-100aa (a) (1), was legally inconsistent with its verdict finding him not guilty of the lesser included offense of burglary in the third degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-103, even though the same facts and allegations underpinned both charges. He also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial, in which he contended that the twenty-five day pause after the jury began deliberating prejudiced him because of the risk that jurors would be exposed to improper outside influences or would forget evidence, counsel’s arguments or the trial court’s instructions. We disagree with both claims and affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 37, for March 12, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 625 - 648)
• Volume 348: Orders (Pages 953 - 955)
• Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 185 - 237)
• Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.

Tuesday, March 12th

• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, March 13th

• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, March 14th

• Hartford Law Library opens at 12:00 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Friday, March 15th

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Monday, March 18th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Hartford Law Library is closed from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Tuesday, March 19th

• Danbury Law Library opens at 3:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:15 p.m.

Wednesday, March 20th

• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Thursday, March 21st

• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.

Friday, March 22nd

• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC45956 - Clark v. Quantitative Strategies Group, LLC (“In this appeal from postjudgment proceedings to obtain satisfaction of a domesticated judgment arising from an arbitration award, the defendant judgment debtor John A. Brunjes appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his claim of exemption filed pursuant to General Statutes (Supp. 2022) § 52-367b claiming that the plaintiff judgment creditors, William Thomas Clark and TDA Construction, Inc., executed on bank accounts that did not belong to him but, rather, belonged to his mother, Josephine M. Brunjes. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly found that he was a co-owner of the bank accounts at issue and that they were not exempt from execution under § 52-367b. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC46298 - Hine Builders, LLC v. Glasscock (“The defendants, Alex Glasscock and Susan Glasscock, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the application to compel arbitration filed by the plaintiff, Hine Builders, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) committed plain error in granting the application to compel arbitration (a) following a remote status conference that was not transcribed or recorded by a court reporter or court recording monitor and (b) without providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the issues in connection with the application, (2) failed to review an agreement executed by the parties, pursuant to which the plaintiff sought to compel arbitration, before granting the application, and (3) improperly granted the application when the prerequisites to arbitration, as set forth in the parties’ agreement, had not been satisfied. We do not reach the merits of the defendants’ claims because, during the pendency of this appeal and following the termination of the appellate stay, arbitration proceedings commenced as ordered by the trial court, and, accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions