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.


Declaratory Judgment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5831

AC45630 - Jefferson Solar, LLC v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection ("The plaintiff, Jefferson Solar, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing its action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq. After the defendant Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (department) declined to issue the plaintiff's requested declaratory ruling pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176 (e), the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 4-175 (a).On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over its declaratory judgment action. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.")


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5829

AC45631, AC45632 - Lyons v. Birmingham Law Office, LLC (“The plaintiff, Justine Lyons, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the underlying action against the defendants Birmingham Law Office, LLC, and Attorney Matthew Birmingham (Birmingham defendants); and Marylou Scofield, PC, and Attorney Marylou Scofield (Scofield defendants), for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) personal jurisdiction over the defendants was not conferred under our state’s long arm statute, General Statutes § 52-59b, and (2) exercising jurisdiction over the defendants would violate the due process requirements of the United States constitution because they have insufficient ‘‘minimum contacts’’ with the state. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5830

AC45857 - Y. H. v. J. B. ("The self-represented defendant, J. B, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Y. H., and entering certain financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion (1) in declining to award him alimony and child support, (2) in its orders regarding the division of marital property, specifically, the marital home and the parties’ business, and (3) in granting the plaintiff’s motions for contempt and ordering him to pay $40,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. Because we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award child support on the ground that it was not requested, and without considering and applying the child support guidelines, we reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to all the financial orders and remand this case for a new trial on all financial issues. We further conclude that the court’s award of attorney’s fees, to the extent it was imposed as a sanction for the defendant’s contempt, constituted an abuse of its discretion, which entitles the defendant to a new hearing as to the appropriate sanction for his wilful violation of the court’s orders. Finally, to the extent that the award of attorney’s fees was made pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-62 (a), this case must also be remanded for reconsideration in light of the new financial orders that will be issued on remand.")


Contract Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5828

SC20754 - Mercedes-Benz Financial v. 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC ("In this certified appeal, the defendants, Aniello Dizenzo and his company, 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC (company), appeal from the Appellate Court's judgment affirming the trial court's denial of their motion to open the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Mercedes-Benz Financial. On appeal, the defendants claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion by denying their motion to open as untimely and with no basis, even though the defendants timely filed their motion. We agree and, therefore, reverse the Appellate Court's judgment.")

AC45867 - Burr v. Grossman Chevrolet-Nissan, Inc. (“The plaintiffs, Mathew Burr, Elmer Blackwell, and MPK Property Maintenance, LLC (MPK), appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendant, Grossman Chevrolet-Nissan, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred in (1) misinterpreting their legal claims, (2) relying on the testimony of the defendant’s representative to reach its conclusion, and (3) finding certain facts in support of its judgment for the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC45620 - Jefferson Solar, LLC v. FuelCell Energy, Inc. (“The plaintiff, Jefferson Solar, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the action as to the defendants FuelCell Energy, Inc., and SCEF1 Fuel Cell, LLC (collectively, FuelCell), and the United Illuminating Company (United Illuminating). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert its claims. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

AC45222 - Travinski v. General Ins. Co. of America (“The plaintiffs, Christoper S. Travinski and Lena L. Travinski, appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, General Insurance Company of America, Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., on the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the counts of their complaint alleging breach of contract and a violation of the Connecticut Unauthorized Insurers Act (CUIA), General Statutes § 38a-271 et seq., and (2) permitted the defendants Safeco Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., to file a motion for summary judgment without posting a bond pursuant to General Statutes § 38a-27. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.)


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5826

AC46460 - Cardoza v. Waterbury ("The plaintiff, Paula M. Cardoza, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the city of Waterbury, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's complaint on the basis that she failed to comply with the requirements of the notice provision of the municipal defective highway statute, General Statutes § 13a-149. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss because the written notice that she submitted to the defendant contained sufficient information in compliance with the notice requirements of § 13a-149, or, in the alternative, the savings clause of § 13a-149 grants her relief under the statute. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5827

AC46463 - State v. Berrios (“On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) his conviction of assault in the third degree precluded a subsequent prosecution for burglary in the first degree and (2) his acquittal on the charge of criminal mischief in the third degree precluded a subsequent prosecution for burglary in the first degree. The state counters that, because the defendant’s postsentencing motions were filed after the court already had sentenced the defendant, the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the defendant’s motions. We agree with the state.”)


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5825

AC44582 - Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Clark ("The self-represented defendant Charles I. Merlis appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss the foreclosure action following the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, doing business as Christiana Trust, not individually but as trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust (Wilmington). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his postjudgment motion to dismiss the action because the original plaintiff, Green Tree Servicing, LLC (Green Tree), failed to give him proper notice of the state's Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP), as required by General Statutes § 8-265ee (a). We disagree because we conclude that the defendant waived his claim. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court.")


Law Library Hours: April 10th to April 19th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5824

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

Wednesday, April 10th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
  • Middletown Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
  • New London Law Library will be open from 9:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.

Thursday, April 11th

  • New London Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Friday, April 12th

  • Hartford Law Library is open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
  • New London Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Monday, April 15th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, April 16th

  • Middletown Law Library closes at 3:15 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Thursday, April 18th

  • Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is open from 9:15 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Friday, April 19th

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


Administrative Appeal Supreme Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5823

SC20703 - Marshall v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (Administrative appeal, Driving Under the Influence; "Turning now to the present case, we note that the arresting officer did not complete the report until he signed and dated it five business days after the plaintiff’s arrest. It is undisputed that the arresting officer failed to comply with the three business day preparation and mailing requirement of § 14-227b (c). The plaintiff’s attorney objected to the admission of the report on that ground. The hearing officer simply overruled the objection and admitted the report without hearing testimony from the arresting officer. Because the report failed to satisfy the preparation and mailing requirement, we conclude that the hearing officer abused her discretion by admitting the noncompliant report without the testimony of the arresting officer.")


Connecticut Law Journal - April 9, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5822

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 41, for April 9, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 750 - 795)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 549 - 668)
  • Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Carey, Sean

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5821

AC45627 - Bouchard v. Wheeler (“This case concerns the proper application of General Statutes § 38a-336, commonly known as the underinsured motorist statute. See Tannone v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 329 Conn. 665, 676, 189 A.3d 99 (2018). The defendant Safeco Insurance Company appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in accordance with the stipulation that it entered into with the plaintiffs Caitlyn Bouchard, Kayla Bouchard and Madalyn Bouchard. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the automobile in question constituted an underinsured motor vehicle, as that term is used in § 38a-336. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5818

AC45875 - Krasko v. Konkos ("The defendants Robert Konkos and Chelsea Konkos (collectively, Konkos defendants); 105 Honeysuckle Trust, dated March 9, 2021, Owned Wealth, LLC, as trustee; and Owned Wealth, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting a motion brought by the plaintiffs, Robert J. Krasko and Francis L. O'Neill, to enforce a settlement agreement allegedly entered into between the parties at a pretrial conference. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion to enforce in the absence of a clear and unambiguous agreement. We reverse the judgment of the court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5820

AC46227 - James P. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner, who had been convicted of various crimes pursuant to a guilty plea, claims that (1) his trial counsel performed deficiently by informing him that it was possible for the sentencing court to reject the plea agreement if the court determined that the agreed upon sentence was too high and (2) he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s deficient performance. We disagree with the petitioner’s second claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC46077 - Vega v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) improperly concluded that he failed to prove that the state had suppressed exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and (3) improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the court improperly denied his petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.”)


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5817

AC45996 - Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Scroggin ("The defendant, Daniel J. Scroggin, who is also known as Daniel F. Scroggin or Daniel Scroggin, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court, for the third time, in favor of the substitute plaintiff, AJX Mortgage Trust I, a Delaware Trust, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Trustee. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) erred in granting summary judgment as to liability in that it improperly relied on an affidavit of a loan officer employed by the plaintiff in determining that the original plaintiff, Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase), was the holder of the note in this case at the time the action was commenced and failed to draw an adverse inference from the plaintiff's refusal to produce witnesses and documents requested by the defendant, and (2) abused its discretion when it implicitly granted the plaintiff's motion for a protective order, which, he alleges, 'resulted in a complete denial of discovery and a denial of [his] ability to rebut the plaintiff's claims.' We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45340 - Ferreira v. Ward (Foreclosure of judgment lien; "The defendant, Charles W. Ward, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in this action to foreclose a judgment lien brought by the plaintiff, Daniel Ferreira. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale without first holding an evidentiary hearing, as requested, to determine whether the homestead exemption of $250,000 set forth in General Statutes § 52-352b (21) applied. We reverse the judgment of the court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5819

SC20720 - State v. Diaz (“In this direct appeal, the defendant, Gonzalo Diaz, raises two unpreserved claims challenging his conviction of felony murder, burglary in the first degree, conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a firearm. First, he claims that the trial court committed plain error when it instructed the jury that it may consider his interest in the outcome of its verdict when assessing the credibility of his trial testimony, contrary to our statement in State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604, 631, 65 A.3d 503 (2013), that such an instruction should not be given. Second, he claims that the prosecutor made improper remarks during cross-examination and rebuttal argument, in violation of his due process right to a fair trial. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)


Connecticut Law Journal - April 2, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5815

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 40, for April 2, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 726 - 750)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 429 - 549)
  • Volume 224: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 904)
  • Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5814

SC20759 - Canner v. Governors Ridge Assn., Inc. (“The plaintiffs, Glen A. Canner, the executor of the estate of Charles A. Canner, and Louis D. Puteri, brought separate actions against a condominium association, the named defendant in each case, Governors Ridge Association, Inc., alleging that the foundations supporting their respective units were sinking as a result of improper design. In this consolidated appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the trial court’s judgments in favor of the defendant on the ground that the three year tort statute of limitations; see General Statutes § 52-577; barred pursuit of an alleged cause of action under the Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA), General Statutes § 47-200 et seq. We conclude that some, but not all, of the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant are time barred and, accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5813

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.")