AC 47853 - In re Matthew W. ("The respondent mother, Johnna W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights to her minor child, Matthew W. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (E). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47173 - Troy Laundry Building, LLC v. Beautiful Life Adult Daycare, LLC ("In this commercial summary process action, the defendant, Beautiful Life Adult Daycare, LLC, appeals from the judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Troy Laundry Building, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss, in which it argued that the notice to quit was defective. The defendant also claims that the court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because (1) there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant had materially breached the lease agreement and/or whether that breach was excused, and (2) the court impermissibly found facts regarding whether an additional security deposit was owed. We do not reach the merits of the defendant's claims because, during the pendency of this appeal, the defendant vacated the premises, and, accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.")

AC46774 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions, LLC ("In this housing discrimination action, the defendants, The Mansions, LLC (Mansions), 75 Hockanum, Inc., and Candace Barnard, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), and the intervening plaintiffs, Wendy Pizzoferrato (Wendy) and Rudy Pizzoferrato (Rudy). The court found that the defendants violated the state fair housing laws, General Statutes § 46a-64b et seq., by constructively denying the Pizzoferratos' request for an accommodation of the defendants' 'no pets' policy for Wendy's two emotional support dogs. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that (1) Wendy needed her emotional support dogs to ameliorate the effects of a disability when the court found only that the defendants regarded her as being disabled and not that she actually was disabled, (2) two emotional support dogs were necessary for Wendy's equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling, and (3) the defendants constructively denied the Pizzoferratos' request for an accommodation. We agree with the defendants' second claim and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC 46459 - Marzaro v. Marzaro ("The defendant Sebastiano G. Marzaro appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Sheri Marzaro. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court abused its discretion in fashioning its financial orders by making a grossly disproportionate property distribution in the plaintiff’s favor and by assigning all of the marital debt to him, (2) the court improperly concluded that the parties’ marital residence, which was held in the Marzaro Family Trust (trust), was subject to equitable distribution, (3) the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a cause of action in counts two and three of her revised complaint and (4) the court improperly denied his motion for contempt and failed to order the plaintiff to disclose certain financial documents. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46367 - Hamer v. Byrne ("This appeal centers on three adjacent properties located in Westport. The plaintiffs, Christopher J. Hamer and Cynthia Hamer, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Janis Melone, Marian Byrne, Jack Precious, and Rachel Precious, on all but one portion of one count of the plaintiffs' cause of action. In their appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred in (1) denying the plaintiffs' claim that Marian improperly erected a spite fence; (2) not awarding the plaintiffs damages in connection with the construction of the spite fence; (3) not ordering the removal of Janis' mailbox, Janis' fence, and Marian's mailbox from the easement area; and (4) finding that the plaintiffs had not sustained their burden and proven their cause of action for adverse possession. The Byrnes cross appeal from the judgment of the court, rendered in part in favor of the plaintiffs, on the Byrnes' counterclaim. In their cross appeal, the Byrnes claim that the court erred in (1) failing to find that Christopher's actions constituted the commission of a prima facie tort and (2) awarding only nominal damages to Rachel and Jack with respect to their vexatious litigation claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46871 - State v. Thompson-Baker (Assault on judicial marshal; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that, when he assaulted a judicial marshal, the marshal was acting in the performance of his official duties. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

Friday, February 28th

• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Monday, March 3rd

• Middletown Law Library is open from 11:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, March 4th

• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, March 5th

• Putnam Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
• New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.

Thursday, March 6th

• Bridgeport Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Friday, March 7th

• Danbury Law Library is closed from 1:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The 2025 edition of our research guide on Equitable Distribution of Marital Property in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides web page.

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

SC20792 - State v. Marcello E. (“On appeal, the defendant asks us to reject the Appellate Court’s conclusion that the prior misconduct evidence was admissible and instead to conclude that it was not relevant to a material fact in the case, and, even if it were relevant, that its probative value did not outweigh its prejudicial effect. We agree with the defendant to the extent that the evidence was unduly prejudicial and harmful and therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and order a remand of the case for a new trial.”)

• Dissent

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 35, for February 25, 2025 is now available.

Table of Contents
Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 298 - 344)
Volume 351: Orders (Pages 905 - 907)
Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 230: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 725 - 875)
Volume 230: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 903)
Volume 230: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

The 2025 edition of our research guide on Motion to Strike has been posted to our research guides web page.

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

AC47807 - In re Aviana J. ("The respondent mother, Elizabeth T., 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, Aviana J. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined (1) that she failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), and (2) that the termination of her parental rights was in Aviana’s best interest. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

Friday, February 21st

• Danbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

Monday, February 24th

• Rockville Law Library is closed

Tuesday, February 25th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, February 26th

• Rockville Law Library is closed

Thursday, February 27th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Friday, February 28th

• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC47153 - Lalli v. New Haven (“The plaintiffs, thirty-seven retired New Haven police officers, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the city of New Haven. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that the defendant did not breach the terms of a 2016 collective bargaining agreement by determining that the plaintiffs, as retirees and not active employees, were not entitled to retroactive wages. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”

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

AC47260 - Elm City Local, CACP v. New Haven (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the arbitration panel did not exceed its powers when it determined that the defendant had just cause to terminate the employment of Jason Santiago, one of the plaintiff’s members, with the New Haven Police Department (department). In particular, the plaintiff claims that the court should have vacated the arbitration award because (1) the award failed to conform to the parties’ submission, and (2) the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46603 - Foundation for the Advancement of Catholic Schools, Inc. v. Blair (“The plaintiffs, Foundation for the Advancement of Catholic Schools, Inc. (FACS), and five members of its Board of Trustees (board), appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, their complaint against the defendants, the Most Reverend Leonard P. Blair; Reverend Ryan M. Lerner; Reverend Michael Whyte; Reverend Jeffrey Romans; Reverend Daniel G. Keefe; and Matthew A. Byrne. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly dismissed their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after concluding that exercising jurisdiction over the action would violate the free exercise and establishment clauses of the first amendment to the United States constitution because adjudicating the dispute would result in the excessive entanglement of government and religion. We conclude that the trial court improperly determined that the first amendment bars adjudication of the plaintiffs' claims and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court.”)

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

AC46199 - Santaniello v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim that his prior habeas counsel performed deficiently by failing to allege that (1) both his trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to raise the claim that the admission of a jailhouse informant’s statements at trial violated his right to confrontation under the United States constitution pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he waived the petitioner’s claim that the state violated his right to counsel pursuant to Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1964), by using the same jailhouse informant to elicit incriminating statements from him. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

SC20840 - State v. Jones (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly admitted into evidence testimony related to the defendant’s alleged gang affiliation, and (2) abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the defendant’s actions after law enforcement attempted to arrest him in Louisiana to establish his consciousness of guilt. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC43796 - State v. Garrison (Assault in the first degree; motion to suppress; “The remaining issues on appeal are whether the trial court improperly denied (1) the defendant’s motion to suppress because, contrary to the determination of the court, his statements to the police were not voluntary, and therefore their admission at trial violated his right to due process, and (2) his motion for sanctions in which he claimed that the state had failed to comply with the court’s discovery orders and its constitutional obligation to disclose impeachment evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). We are not persuaded by these claims and therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.”)

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

AC47097- Marks v. GLT Development Corp. ("In this personal injury action, which arose during the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff, Stephen Marks, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant GLT Development Corporation's motion to strike on statute of limitations grounds. This appeal involves the question of how to calculate, in connection with the plaintiff's negligence claim arising from an accident that occurred on May 24, 2020, the statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-584. The operability of that statute was suspended as a result of Governor Ned Lamont's Executive Order No. 7G, effective March 19, 2020, and that suspension subsequently was lifted on March 1, 2021, by Governor Lamont's Executive Order No. 10A.The plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly concluded that the two year limitations period began to run on March 1, 2021, and expired on March 1, 2023.The plaintiff argues instead that he was entitled to a suspension of 347 or 348 days, representing the total number of days that the suspension was in effect, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff's cause of action did not exist when the suspension began. That is, the plaintiff contends that the proper calculation of his limitations period is effectively two years plus 347 or 348 days. The defendant argues to the contrary that the court properly concluded that the statute of limitations began to run on March 1, 2021, and expired on March 1, 2023. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC47760 - In re Skye B. (Termination of parental rights; "On appeal, the respondent claims that the court violated his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination when it terminated his parental rights for failure to rehabilitate on the basis of his unwillingness to admit to the potentially criminal conduct that initiated the underlying child protection case. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC21026 - Stamford v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings ("This public interest appeal under General Statutes § 52-265a requires us to address the relationship between the appeal provisions contained in two related statutory schemes, namely, the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., and the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., as they apply to appeals to the Superior Court from decisions made by a human rights referee (referee) of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). Pursuant to the CFEPA, only 'a final order of a presiding officer' is appealable 'in accordance with [§] 4-183 [of the UAPA].' General Statutes § 46a-94a (a). The UAPA provides that an appeal to the Superior Court may be taken from either an agency's 'final decision'; General Statutes § 4-183 (a); or 'a preliminary, procedural or intermediate agency action or ruling . . . if (1) it appears likely that the person will otherwise qualify . . . to appeal from the final agency action or ruling and (2) postponement of the appeal would result in an inadequate remedy.' General Statutes § 4-183 (b). The primary issue in this appeal is whether a 'final order' under the CFEPA is limited to a 'final decision,' as defined by the UAPA, or whether it also includes an appealable 'preliminary, procedural or intermediate agency action or ruling' under § 4-183 (b). We conclude that the term 'final order' encompasses both final decisions under § 4-183 (a) and appealable interlocutory orders under § 4-183 (b). The order at issue in this case, however, was neither an appealable final decision nor an appealable interlocutory order. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand with direction to render judgment granting the defendants' motions to dismiss the city's administrative appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Recent Opinions