Home - CT Judicial Law Libraries' NewsLog

Connecticut Law Journal - December 31, 2024

Dec 31 2024 11:37AM by Agati, Taryn

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6144

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 27, for December 31, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents

Volume 350: Orders (Pages 933 - 935)

Volume 350: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports

Volume 229: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 834 - 866)

Volume 229: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports

Volume 230: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 53)

Volume 230: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports

Miscellaneous Notices

Notice Publishing Deadlines

Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

Dec 27 2024 5:23PM by Zigadto, Janet

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6143

AC46166 - Unifoods, S.A. de C.V. v. Magallanes ("The plaintiff, Unifoods, S.A. de C.V., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants Julia Magallanes and Calvin Cordulack on counts two through five of the plaintiff's operative complaint asserting violations of the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the defendants satisfied their initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff's fraudulent transfer claims were time barred pursuant to General Statutes § 52-552j, and (2) after shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had not established the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the timeliness of its claims. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

Administrative Appeal Appellate Opinion

Dec 27 2024 12:57PM by Agati, Taryn

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6142

AC46660 - Cetran v. Wethersfield ("The plaintiff, James L. Cetran, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the town of Wethersfield, following the granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's cause of action, which was captioned "Appeal," because the appeal was moot. We affirm the judgment on the alternative ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff named and served the incorrect party.")

Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

Dec 27 2024 11:45AM by Townsend, Karen

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6141

AC47331 - State v. Nathaniel T. ("The self-represented defendant, Nathaniel T., who had been convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child for which he was sentenced to a period of incarceration, followed by a period of special parole and a period of probation, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify the condition of his probation that he comply with all sex offender registry requirements, namely, the requirement that, upon being released from confinement, he register his name and address with the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection and that such registration be maintained for the duration of his life (lifetime sex offender registration). The defendant claims that the court, Dayton, J., improperly denied his motion to modify the lifetime sex offender registration requirement of his probation. In addition, with respect to the underlying sentencing proceedings, the defendant claims that the court, Rodriguez, J., improperly denied him the opportunity to present certain mitigating evidence and imposed an illegal and unconstitutional sentence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

Dec 24 2024 3:26PM by Agati, Taryn

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6140

AC47745 - In re S. G. ("The respondent mother, Elizabeth G., appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner), terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, M and S (collectively, children). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court erred when it determined that (1) she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), and (2) termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the court.")

Workers’ Compensation Law Supreme Court Opinion

Dec 24 2024 12:13PM by Oumano, Emily

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6138

SC20922 - Napolitano v. Ace American Ins. Co. (“This certified appeal requires us to consider the relationship between General Statutes § 31-348,1 which governs the cancellation of workers’ compensation insurance policies, and traditional principles of contract law governing the cancellation of insurance policies. The plaintiff, Thomas Napolitano, doing business as Napolitano Roofing, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff on his breach of contract claim. Napolitano v. Ace American Ins. Co., 219 Conn. App. 110, 114, 137, 293 A.3d 915 (2023). The plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the named defendant, Ace American Insurance Company, effectively cancelled the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation insurance by providing a cancellation notice that complied with § 31-348, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant, during the same time period, engaged in other conflicting conduct that the plaintiff contends rendered its notice of cancellation indefinite, uncertain, and ambiguous. We agree with the plaintiff and reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”

Connecticut Law Journal - December 24, 2024

Dec 24 2024 11:32AM by Agati, Taryn

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6137

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 26, for December 24, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents
Volume 350: Connecticut Reports (Pages 844 - 890)
Volume 350: Orders (Pages 931 - 932)
Volume 350: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 229: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 710 - 834)
Volume 229: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
Notice Publishing Deadlines

Law Library Hours: December 24th to January 3rd

Dec 23 2024 4:45PM by Roy, Christopher

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6136

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

Tuesday, December 24th

Bridgeport Law Library is closed.
Danbury Law Library is closed.
Middletown Law Library is closed.
New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
New London Law Library is closed.
Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, December 25th

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

Thursday, December 26th

Middletown Law Library is closed.
New Britain Law Library is closed.
New London Law Library is closed.
Putnam Law Library is closed.
Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Friday, December 27th

New Britain Law Library is closed.
New London Law Library is closed.

Monday, December 30th

Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
New Haven Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
New London Law Library is closed.
Rockville Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, December 31st

Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
New London Law Library is closed.
Stamford Law Library is closed.
Torrington Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.

Wednesday, January 1st

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

Thursday, January 2nd

New London Law Library is closed.

Friday, January 3rd

New London Law Library is closed.

Posted in:
Library Notices

Workers’ Compensation Law Supreme Court Opinions

Dec 23 2024 12:05PM by Oumano, Emily

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6134

SC20932 - Martinoli v. Stamford Police Dept. (“In this certified appeal, the plaintiff, Louis Martinoli, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board) upholding an award of total incapacity benefits to the plaintiff under General Statutes § 31-307 (a). See Martinoli v. Stamford Police Dept., 220 Conn. App. 874, 875–76, 881, 299 A.3d 1258 (2023). The Appellate Court reasoned that, in accordance with the holding it reached that same day in Cochran v. Dept. of Transportation, 220 Conn. App. 855, 868, 299 A.3d 1247 (2023), rev’d, 350 Conn. 848, A.3d (2024), the plaintiff was ineligible to receive benefits under § 31-307 (a) because, prior to the onset of his incapacity, he had voluntarily retired from the workforce with no intention of returning.”

“We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court for consideration of those issues. The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to consider the defendants’ remaining claims.”

SC20940 - Cochran v. Dept. of Transportation (“The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether an employee who sustained a compensable injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., is eligible to receive total incapacity benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 31-307 (a) when the total incapacity occurred after the employee’s voluntary retirement from the workforce. The Appellate Court held that an employee ‘‘who elected to retire from employment . . . and affirmatively conceded that he had no intention of returning to the workforce . . . was not entitled to [total incapacity] benefits pursuant to the [plain language of] the statute.’’ Cochran v. Dept. of Transportation, 220 Conn. App. 855, 868, 299 A.3d 1247 (2023). We disagree and reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”

Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

Dec 20 2024 4:34PM by Oumano, Emily

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6133

AC46539 - Larobina v. Altice Media Solutions, LLC (“The self-represented plaintiff, Vincent P. Larobina, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the defendant, Altice Media Solutions, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly concluded that (1) his request for a declaratory judgment—to the extent it sought to invalidate the arbitration provision incorporated into his services agreement with the defendant on the basis that it contained an improper, so-called ‘‘infinite arbitration clause’’—was nonjusticiable, (2) the services agreement was lawfully formed, and (3) insofar as the arbitration provision applied to the parties’ underlying telephone service dispute, the provision was not unconscionable. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm in part the judgment of the trial court; we reverse in part the judgment to correct its form.”

“The form of the judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory ruling pertaining to the infinite arbitration clause is improper, the judgment is reversed only as to that claim and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment dismissing that claim; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.”)

Probate Law Appellate Court Opinion

Dec 20 2024 11:56AM by Berardino, Emily

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6132

AC46570- Heibeck v. Heibeck ("In this probate appeal, the defendants Martin John Heibeck, Thomas Edward Heibeck, Michael William Heibeck, and George Stephen Heibeck appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Barbara Heibeck and Skylar Smith. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly deemed valid a commercial lease executed in 2016 whose lease term commenced upon the death of the owner-lessor in 2019.We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

Dec 20 2024 11:41AM by Berardino, Emily

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6135

AC46649 - Lenczewski v. Lenczewski ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the defendant, Vincent Lenczewski, appeals from the judgment of the trial court resolving several motions filed by the defendant and the plaintiff, Jennifer Lenczewski. Specifically, the defendant claims on appeal that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his motion for a reduction in his alimony obligation, (2) improperly denied his motion for contempt with respect to the plaintiff's claimed failure to comply with a provision of an arbitration award, (3) improperly found him in contempt, and (4) abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

Dec 20 2024 11:39AM by Townsend, Karen

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6131

AC46538 - Burgos v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance; competency;“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by stipulating to the petitioner’s competency to stand trial. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

Dec 20 2024 11:37AM by Zigadto, Janet

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6130

AC46972 - Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden ("The self-represented defendant, Peter Madden, appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to restore to the docket (motion to restore) the summary process action filed against him by the plaintiff, Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to restore because he had acquired a vested right to litigate various allegations of malfeasance by the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

Surface Water in Connecticut - 2024 edition

Dec 20 2024 9:27AM by Townsend, Karen

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6129

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Surface Water in Connecticut has been added to our research guides web page.

Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

Dec 19 2024 4:22PM by Berardino, Emily

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6128

AC47485- In re Maci S. ("The respondent mother, Dayna L., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Maci S. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that (1) she was unable or unwilling to benefit from the reunification efforts of the Department of Children and Families (department), (2) she failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B), and (3) the termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of Maci. We disagree with the respondent's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

Dec 19 2024 9:16AM by Zigadto, Janet

https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6127

AC47584 - In re Jacqueline K. ("The respondent father, Matthew S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his daughter, Jacqueline K. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify him with Jacqueline pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (1); (2) he failed to achieve the requisite degree of personal rehabilitation required by § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B); and (3) termination of his parental rights was in Jacqueline's best interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")