The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Law Library Hours: January 31st to February 7th

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6188

Friday, January 31st

  • New Britain Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.

Monday, February 3rd

  • New Britain Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, February 4th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
  • New Britain Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m. and closes at 4:45 p.m.
  • New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
  • Hartford Law Library is closed from 2:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 9:45 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, February 5th

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

Thursday, February 6th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • Middletown Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.
  • New Haven Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Friday, February 7th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed from 1:00 p.m. through 3:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6187

SC21013 - McCarter & English, LLP v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. ("This case, which comes to us upon our acceptance of a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, requires us to consider whether a law firm can recover punitive damages from a former client for the client's breach of contract. We have long recognized that the principal purpose of remedies in a breach of contract action is to provide compensation for loss. See, e.g., Vines v. Orchard Hills, Inc., 181 Conn. 501, 506, 435 A.2d 1022 (1980). As a result, damages for breach of contract are traditionally limited to compensatory damages. See, e.g., id., 506–507. Connecticut is unique among the states because common-law punitive damages are limited to litigation expenses that may also serve to compensate the plaintiff. See, e.g., Berry v. Loiseau, 223 Conn. 786, 827, 614 A.2d 414 (1992). But we have also recognized that, "in . . . light of the increasing costs of litigation," punitive damages can also "punish and deter wrongful conduct." Id. Consequently, punitive damages are often in tension with the purpose of damages in contract law because, "[e]ven if the breach [of contract] is deliberate, it is not necessarily blameworthy." Patton v. Mid-Continent Systems, Inc., 841 F.2d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 1988). In light of this tension, we tread carefully when determining whether to broaden the scope of a client's potential liability to its attorney when that attorney brings a breach of contract action against the client. After consideration of the common law of this state and other jurisdictions, and the relevant policy implications, we agree with, and adopt, the rule followed by the majority of jurisdictions and the Restatements: a law firm may not recover common-law punitive damages for its client's breach of contract unless it pleads and proves the existence of an independent tort for which punitive damages are available.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6186

AC 46883 - Cardona v. Padilla ("The plaintiff, Priscilla I. Cardona, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the defendant, Raymond J. Padilla, who lives in Florida, primary physical custody of their minor child (child) and ordering visitation for the plaintiff with the child. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in making its custody and visitation orders and by issuing an order pursuant to Practice Book § 25-26 (g) when neither party has filed excessive motions or pleadings in this case. We agree with the plaintiff as to the court’s visitation order and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court in part and remand the case for a new hearing on visitation.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6184

AC47132 - Park Seymour Associates, LLC v. Hartford ("The plaintiffs, Park Seymour Associates, LLC (Seymour), and Park Squire Associates, LLC (Squire), appeal from the judgments rendered in favor of the defendants, the city of Hartford (city) and the city's Board of Assessment Appeals, after a consolidated trial to the court in these actions brought as municipal tax appeals pursuant to General Statutes § 12-119. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court's judgments in favor of the defendants were improper in that the court made a clearly erroneous finding that the plaintiffs had not proven the existence of tax abatement agreements. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC46674 - Pascual v. Perry ("The plaintiffs, Alexa Pascual and Freiny Francisco, appeal, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Tammy K. Perry, on the count of her counterclaim alleging adverse possession. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erroneously concluded that (1) the defendant's and her predecessor in title's use of the disputed area was open and visible; (2) the defendant's predecessor in title's possession of the disputed area was hostile; and (3) the defendant could tack her predecessor in title's period of adverse possession onto her own, and, additionally, (4) the court erred in failing to find that the defendant's adverse possession rights were extinguished by the judgment of foreclosure rendered against the plaintiffs' predecessor in title. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6185

AC46744 - Lopez v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion by denying him certification to appeal; (2) improperly concluded that the petitioner’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present the testimony of Jose Lopez III (Lopez III), the petitioner’s son, at his criminal trial; and (3) improperly concluded that the petitioner was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to investigate and present the testimony of Zeequan Groves at his criminal trial. We agree with the petitioner that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying him certification to appeal. We disagree with the habeas court’s analysis of the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to Lopez III, but we do not, in this opinion, disturb its judgment denying the petitioner relief on that claim. Instead, we remand the matter to the habeas court to resolve the factual question of whether, had Lopez III testified at the petitioner’s criminal trial, there is a reasonable probability that his testimony exculpating the petitioner would have been credited by the jury. We retain jurisdiction over this appeal pending the remand and subsequent appellate proceedings. In light of our remand order on the petitioner’s second claim, we leave his third claim for another day.”)

AC46554 - Mitchell v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal; (2) violated his constitutional right to due process by denying him a full and fair hearing; (3) improperly granted summary judgment for the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, on his claim that his kidnapping conviction violated the state and federal constitutions because the criminal trial court failed to instruct the jury in accordance with State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008); and (4) erred in concluding that his prior habeas counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance. We dismiss the appeal.”)


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6183

AC47066 - Ramos v. State (“The self-represented plaintiff, Jose Ramos, who previously had been convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and sentenced to sixty years of imprisonment, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action against the defendant, the state of Connecticut (state), in which he sought declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, and to have his conviction vacated and a new criminal trial. On appeal, he claims that the court improperly (1) granted the state’s motion to dismiss the action and (2) did so without oral argument on the motion. We conclude that the plaintiff’s claims are inadequately briefed and, thus, decline to review them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.”)


Connecticut Law Journal - January 28, 2025

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6182

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 31, for January 28, 2025 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 143 - 186)
  • Volume 351: Orders (Pages 902 - 902)
  • Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 230: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 335 - 436)
  • Volume 230: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
  • Volume 230: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6181

SC21024 - 7 Germantown Road, LLC v. Danbury ("This joint public interest appeal, which stems from six individual tax appeals filed in the Superior Court, requires us to determine whether a property owner's failure to timely file an appraisal in accordance with General Statutes (Rev. to 2023) § 12-117a (a) (2), in a tax appeal involving real property assessed at one million dollars or more, implicates the Superior Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the tax appeal. We conclude that the appraisal filing requirement in General Statutes (Rev. to 2023) § 12-117a (a) (2) is not jurisdictional in nature and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the Superior Court.")


Law Library Hours: January 24th to January 31st

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6180

Friday, January 24th

  • Danbury Law Library closes from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library opens at 1:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.

Monday, January 27th

  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • Danbury Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

Tuesday, January 28th

  • New Britain Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, January 29th

  • Rockville Law Library is closed.
  • New London Law Library closes at 2:15 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.

Thursday, January 30th

  • Rockville Law Library is closed.

Friday, January 31st

  • New Britain Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.



Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6178

AC46658 - Brown v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Mozzelle Brown, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his third amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the court erred in (1) denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) concluding that his due process claim related to the state's failure to disclose an agreement or understanding between the prosecutor and a cooperating witness was procedurally defaulted. We agree with the petitioner that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. We also agree with the petitioner that the habeas court erred in refusing to consider the merits of his due process claim. After reaching the merits of that claim, we conclude that the alleged constitutional violation exists and that he is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, we remand the case to the habeas court with direction to render judgment granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, to vacate the petitioner's conviction of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a and 53a-48 (a) and murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54 (a) and 53a-8, and to order a new trial on those offenses.")

AC46356 - Franko v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Lawrence Franko, appeals following the denial by the habeas court of his petition for certification to appeal from the dismissal of his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470. On appeal, he claims that the court improperly determined that he failed to demonstrate good cause within the meaning of § 52-470 (e) to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay in the filing of his third habeas petition. He also claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. We dismiss the appeal.")

AC46615 - Gentile v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Gino Gentile, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing as untimely his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) committed plain error in determining that his habeas petition was untimely and (2) erred in concluding that he failed to establish good cause for this late filed petition. With respect to the former, we conclude that the petitioner has not established plain error. As to the latter, in light of our Supreme Court's recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333, 304 A.3d 431 (2023), which recognized that ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute good cause for the delay in filing, and this court's subsequent decisions in Ibrahim v. Commissioner of Correction, 229 Conn. App. 658, ___ A.3d ___ (2024), Coney v. Commissioner of Correction, 225 Conn. App. 450, 315 A.3d 1161 (2024), Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction, 225 Conn. App. 341, 314 A.3d 659 (2024), Rapp v. Commissioner of Correction, 224 Conn. App. 336, 311 A.3d 249, cert. denied, 349 Conn. 909, 314 A.3d 601 (2024), and Hankerson v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. App. 562, 308 A.3d 1113 (2024), we conclude that the judgment of the habeas court must be reversed, and the case remanded for a new good cause hearing.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6176

SC20801 - State v. Ziolkowski ("Following a trial, the jury found the defendant, Karin Ziolkowski, guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) and arson in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-112 (a) (1) (B). For those crimes, the trial court sentenced the defendant to forty years of imprisonment. In this direct appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3), the defendant asserts that (1) her amnesia during a twenty-four to thirty-six hour period around the time of the incident in question prevented her from receiving a fair trial, (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence several postings on a Twitter (now X) account, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to find her guilty of murder and of arson in the second degree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6175

AC46854 - North Branford Citizens Against Bulk Propane Storage v. North Branford ("The plaintiff, North Branford Citizens Against Bulk Propane Storage, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its declaratory judgment action against the defendants, the Town of North Branford (town), North Branford Planning and Zoning Commission (commission), Donald Fucci, and 2772 BPR, LLC (company). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in dismissing the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. We affirm the judgment of the trial court on the alternative ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to maintain the action.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6174

AC46873 - Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon ("In this summary process action, the defendant Kristine Noon appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Brook Run Development Corp. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that her residential lease with the plaintiff had terminated because a specific provision of the lease did not operate to automatically renew the lease. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


New Office of Legislative Research Reports

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6173

The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has recently published the following new reports:

Waiving Interest on Delinquent Property Taxes - 2025-R-0010 - Under what circumstances can towns waive interest on delinquent property taxes? This report updates OLR Report 2021-R-0151.

Connecticut's Paid Sick Leave Law (as of 1/1/2025) - 2025-R-0016 - Describes Connecticut’s paid sick leave law as amended by PA 24-8.

Human Trafficking-Related Legislation (2020-2024) - 2025-R-0020 - Summarizes the human trafficking-related legislation that passed over the past five sessions (2020 through 2024).

Public & Special Acts Affecting Connecticut Native American Tribes, 1992-2024 - 2025-R-0004 - Describes the Connecticut public and special acts enacted since 1992 affecting the state’s Native American tribes and includes a brief history of how the state recognized the tribes in statute. Also included is information from the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) on (1) various appropriations from 1992-2024 for policies affecting Native American tribes in Connecticut and (2) casino gaming payments by the tribes to the state since FY 93.

Pesticide Application at Schools - 2025-R-0018 - Provides information regarding school pesticide application statutes (CGS §§ 10-231a to -231d). This report updates OLR report 2012-R-0376.


Connecticut Law Journal - January 21, 2025

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6171

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 30, for January 21, 2025 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 86 - 142)
  • Volume 351: Orders (Pages 901 - 901)
  • Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 230: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 187 - 335)
  • Volume 230: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
  • Volume 230: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6172

SC20950 - Murphy v. Rosen ("The use of derogatory remarks on social media and elsewhere has become commonplace in political discourse, with words and phrases taking on different meanings depending on the context in which the expression is made, the intentions of the speaker, and the viewpoint of the audience. This case arises out of heated political dialogue that took place on a town's social media page. The plaintiff, Sean Murphy, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which granted the special motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Beth Rosen, pursuant to Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute. See General Statutes § 52-196a. The trial court determined, as a matter of law, that the statements made by the defendant labeling the plaintiff as a "white supremacist" were nonactionable opinions. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy his burden of showing that there was probable cause that he would succeed on the merits of his defamation per se claim, as required by § 52-196a (e) (3). The primary issue on appeal is whether the characterization of the plaintiff as a "white supremacist" is, standing alone, an actionable fact constituting defamation per se. We conclude that, although calling someone a "white supremacist" or a "racist" is a serious accusation, the meanings of these terms are inherently subjective. As a result, we join numerous other jurisdictions that have concluded that these terms are not objectively verifiable and do not, without more, imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts. Because the trial court correctly determined that the defendant's allegedly defamatory statements constituted nonactionable opinions, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6170

SC21008 - State v. Inzitari (One count of possessing child pornography in the first degree; fifty or more visual depictions of child pornography; artifacts of deleted images; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the court improperly instructed the jury that it could consider the so-called Dost factors in determining whether the images introduced by the state constituted a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area, (3) the court erred in not giving a unanimity instruction, and (4) the court abused its discretion in admitting two of the state’s exhibits. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Law Library Hours: January 17th to January 24th

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6169

Friday, January 17th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.

Monday, January 20th

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

Tuesday, January 21st

  • New Britain Law Library is closed.
  • Rockville Law Library is open from 11:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, January 22nd

  • New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

Thursday, January 23rd

  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Friday, January 24th

  • Danbury Law Library closes from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library opens at 1:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Carey, Sean

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=6168

AC46494 - Bouazza v. Geico General Ins. Co. (“The plaintiff, Saadia Bouazza, appeals from the judgment of the trial court with respect to its dismissal of her claim of bad faith against the defendant, Geico General Insurance Company. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the litigation privilege applied and deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, improperly dismissed her claim of bad faith. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that (1) the litigation privilege was not applicable in this case, (2) the parties should have had an opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the court ruling on this issue, (3) the court’s ruling fails to articulate how the test set forth in Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582, 271 A.3d 53 (2022), for determining whether the litigation privilege applies, was met in this case, and (4) the court improperly considered the offer of compromise filed by the plaintiff in support of its decision. We conclude that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the litigation privilege and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)