AC46385 - State v. Randolph (Violation of probation; revoking probation; “The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his counsel’s motion to withdraw her appearance and (2) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into his competency to stand trial and, consequently, erred in denying his motion for a competency evaluation pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56d. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46382 - State v. Dayvid J. (Strangulation in the second degree; disorderly conduct; writ of error coram nobis; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition and, therefore, erred in dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46513 - State v. Barnes (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in determining that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s motion because he had been released on special parole and, therefore, was no longer serving ‘an executed period of incarceration’ as prescribed by § 53a-39 (a). We conclude that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s motion but correctly concluded that the defendant was not entitled to relief under § 53a-39 (a) because he was no longer serving an ‘executed period of incarceration.’ The form of the judgment is improper, as the court should have denied rather than dismissed the motion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing the defendant’s motion for modification and remand the case with direction to deny that motion.”)

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

AC 45960 - N. R. v. M. P. ("The plaintiff, N. R., appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the defendant, M. P., sole legal and physical custody of their two minor children. On appeal, N. R. claims that the court improperly (1) awarded M. P. sole legal and physical custody of the children, (2) issued an order that, if N. R. is not current on child support, he must share one half of the travel expenses for the minor children to visit him in Connecticut, and (3) relied on the testimony of the guardian ad litem in its analysis of the best interests of the minor children. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 46228 - Sanchez v. Hartford ("The defendants, the city of Hartford (city) and James Davis, a police officer employed by the city, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a jury trial finding Davis negligent in violation of General Statutes § 14-283, the city liable for indemnification pursuant to General Statutes § 7-465, and finding the plaintiff, Jose Sanchez, contributorily negligent. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court committed plain error by (1) (a) instructing the jury on common law principles of negligence regarding the operation of a motor vehicle, including the duty to drive with due care, and (b) failing to instruct the jury that Davis, as an operator of an emergency vehicle, was permitted to disregard driving statutes, ordinances and regulations, and (2) failing to instruct the jury that, pursuant to § 14-283 (e), other operators of motor vehicles have a mandatory duty to drive to a position parallel to the curb of the roadway and remain there until the emergency vehicle has passed, ‘‘[u]pon the immediate approach of an emergency vehicle making use of . . . an audible warning signal device and such visible flashing or revolving lights . . . .’’ General Statutes § 14- 283 (e). We conclude that the record does not support the defendants’ claims that the challenged portions of the jury instructions constituted plain error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

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

Thursday, August 29th

• New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Friday, August 30th

• Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Monday, September 2nd

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

Tuesday, September 3rd

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

Wednesday, September 4th

• New Britain Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
• New London Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Thursday, September 5th

• Bridgeport Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Friday, September 6th

• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC 20800 - Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ammar Idlibi, a pediatric dentist, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court, which rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Hartford Courant Company, on his defamation claims. The plaintiff’s complaint centers around two articles published by the defendant that allegedly exaggerated the scope and seriousness of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Department of Public Health (department) and the Connecticut State Dental Commission that resulted in a reprimand, fines, and probation of the plaintiff’s license to practice as a dentist. The courts below concluded that the five allegedly defamatory statements contained in the articles either were substantially true or were subject to the fair report privilege and, therefore, were protected speech under the first amendment to the United States constitution. In this certified appeal, the plaintiff’s primary claim is that he should have been permitted to proceed to trial on a sixth allegation, one only vaguely alluded to in his pleadings, that a stock (or file) photograph accompanying the defendant’s articles also was defamatory. Although this case raises important questions about the extent to which the judiciary must accommodate the inexperience of self-represented litigants, and potentially implicates some constitutional questions of first impression that the parties have not fully briefed, we ultimately conclude that this sixth claim is not properly in the case and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC 20800 Dissent - Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co.

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 9, for August 27, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 227: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 593 - 698)
Volume 227: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Assignment of Judges
Miscellaneous Notices
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Abandoned, Lost or Unclaimed Property in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

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

Monday, August 26th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, August 27th

• New Britain Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is closed from 9:15 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
• New London Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is open 9:15 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.

Wednesday, August 28th

• Stamford Law Library is open from 10:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Thursday, August 29th

• New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Friday, August 30th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC46512 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Durant (“The defendant, Fred N. Durante, also known as Fred N. Durante, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for approval of trial court and appellate costs and attorney’s fees filed by the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion because it was untimely under Practice Book § 11-21 and was made without any showing of excusable neglect to permit the late filing. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46399 - Bucci v. Bridgeport ("The plaintiff, Elizabeth Bucci, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court following its granting of a motion for summary judgment that was filed by the defendant, the city of Bridgeport, and its denial of her motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court improperly (1) concluded that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist with respect to whether Bridgeport Police Officer Anthony Gianpoalo was acting within the scope of his employment or official duties, and (2) determined that her claim based on the defendant's negligent hiring of Bridgeport Police Officer John Carrano was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46511 - Carty v. Merchant 99-111 Founders, LLC ("The plaintiff, Lloyd Carty, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Merchant 99-111 Founders, LLC, on the plaintiff's one count complaint sounding in premises liability arising out of his slip and fall. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the basis of the ongoing storm doctrine because (1) the defendant never produced evidence to refute the claim that the plaintiff fell on preexisting ice, and (2) the plaintiff raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether he fell on preexisting ice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46215 - State v. Bolden (Evading responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle; tampering with physical evidence; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) with regard to the tampering charge, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed that a criminal investigation was about to be instituted and that he had concealed a thing with the purpose to impair its availability in such investigation, and (2) the court’s refusal to answer the jury’s questions during its deliberations resulted in an improper enlargement of the charged crimes. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46111 - State v. Tahir L. (Sexual assault in the fourth degree; risk of injury to a child; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his right to due process was violated by the trial court’s preliminary instructions to the jury, (2) his right to due process was violated by the court’s final instructions to the jury, (3) the court erred in admitting certain evidence, and (4) the state committed prosecutorial impropriety. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

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

SC 20750 - State v. Mebane (Conviction of felony murder, murder, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit; “Following a jury trial, the defendant, Lonnie Mebane, was convicted of murder, criminal possession of a firearm, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, Eric Diaz. In this direct appeal, the defendant raises the following claims: (1) the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial by asking three witnesses questions that favored the state and prejudiced the defendant, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a reasonable inference that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim, and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence and the defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime. We affirm the judgment.”)

• Dissent

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

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

Tuesday, August 20th

• Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries will open at 10:30 a.m.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, August 21st

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Thursday, August 22nd

• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
• Hartford Law Library is closed between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library opens at 12:30 p.m.
• New Haven Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library opens at 1:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library opens at 12:30 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 2:00 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.

Friday, August 23rd

• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library opens at 12:00 p.m.

Monday, August 26th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, August 27th

• New Britain Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is open 9:15 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.

Wednesday, August 28th

• Stamford Law Library is open from 10:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Thursday, August 29th

• New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Friday, August 30th

• Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 8, for August 20, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 227: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 347 - 593)
• Volume 227: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC45389 - Dorfman v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Tamara Dorfman, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, in this action for, inter alia, vexatious litigation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the counts of her complaint alleging vexatious litigation on the basis of its determination that certain pleadings in a prior action between the parties were filed by the defendant with probable cause, (2) misapplied the proper standard of proof in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the vexatious litigation counts, (3) improperly denied the plaintiff the ability to obtain meaningful discovery related to her claims of vexatious litigation prior to granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and (4) did not engage in the proper analysis when it granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the counts of her complaint alleging violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Statutes § 38a-815 et seq. We agree with the plaintiff's first two claims and, thus, reverse in part the judgment of the court.")

• AC45389 Concurrence & Dissent - Dorfman v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20798 - Laiuppa v. Moritz ("This certified appeal requires us to construe General Statutes § 52-592, the accidental failure of suit statute, in order to determine whether the plaintiff, Paul Laiuppa, commenced his underlying civil action within the time limited by law. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision to grant the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Mary Moritz, on the ground that the original action was not "commenced within the time limited by law," as required by § 52-592 (a). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the action was not "commenced" for purposes of § 52-592 (a) on the ground that the defendant did not receive a copy of the summons and complaint within the time period prescribed by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC20798 Dissent - Laiuppa v. Moritz

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46547 -Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd. v. 899 ETG Associates, LLC (“In this foreclosure action, the defendants—the owner of certain mortgaged real property and four alleged guarantors—jointly appeal the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd. On appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court, in granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, improperly determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the defendants’ special defense of unclean hands. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal as to the four guarantor defendants and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46032, AC46034 - Chelsea Groton Bank v. Gates Realty Holdings, LLC (“These writs of error were commenced by the plaintiff in error, Ross Weingarten, who was, with respect to property located at 15 Elm Street in Groton, the initial successful bidder in the underlying foreclosure action in which the trial court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale. In Docket No. AC 46032, the plaintiff in error challenges the court’s order granting the motion, filed by the defendant in error, Chelsea Groton Bank, to forfeit his deposit; in Docket No. AC 46034, the plaintiff in error challenges the court’s order denying his motion to intervene as of right. In Docket No. AC 46032, we grant the writ of error; in Docket No. AC 46034, we dismiss the writ of error on the ground of mootness.”)

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46350 - Prescott v. Gilshteyn ("The defendant, Yuliya Gilshteyn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for a prejudgment remedy filed by the plaintiff, Keren Prescott, upon findings of probable cause that the defendant committed a civil assault and battery against the plaintiff, that the defendant intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the plaintiff, that the defendant maliciously and intentionally harassed and intimidated the plaintiff by spitting in the plaintiff's face and that her actions in doing so were motivated, in whole or in substantial part, by the plaintiff's race. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $295,239.60, (2) abused its discretion in permitting testimony from the plaintiff's expert concerning the racist import of certain statements made by the defendant, and (3) committed plain error in granting the plaintiff's application for a prejudgment remedy in a case involving freedom of speech and first amendment principles. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45842 - Moore v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that (1) the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that the state violated his right to due process during his underlying criminal trial by (a) failing to disclose an alleged cooperation agreement with a witness who testified at his criminal trial and (b) knowingly soliciting that witness’ allegedly false and misleading testimony and allowing that testimony to go uncorrected, and (2) this court should (a) revisit its prior ruling on his motion for review and grant the relief requested therein to supplement the record in this appeal with transcripts and a court file from a witness’ criminal case that were not before the habeas court, or, in the alternative, (b) take judicial notice of those materials. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the state violated his due process rights, and we decline the petitioner’s invitation to revisit this court’s prior ruling on his motion for review or to take judicial notice of materials that were not before the habeas court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC46325 - LaSalle v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal following its determination that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay for the filing of his untimely habeas petition. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC 46158 - Briggs v. Briggs ("The plaintiff, Kathryn A. Briggs, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, David L. Briggs. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) awarding to the defendant the entirety of his interest in Sunriver Fund, LP (Sunriver Fund); (2) establishing a parenting schedule unsupported by the evidence and in contrast to the schedules suggested by both parties; and (3) issuing orders concerning final decision-making authority as to the children’s extracurricular activities. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions