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.
AC 46656 - Yanavich v. Yanavich ("The defendant, Joseph Yanavich, has presented two issues for our review in this postmarital dissolution appeal. First, he claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to modify alimony and child support. Second, he claims that the court improperly failed to impose sanctions on the plaintiff, his former wife, Jennifer M. Yanavich, after finding her in contempt for violating the terms of the dissolution judgment. More specifically, as to his first claim, he seeks our determination as to whether the retained earnings of a subchapter S corporation derived from past years’ earnings and distributed to its sole shareholder in a later year or years can be considered present income to the shareholder for purposes of setting his or her alimony and child support obligations. As to his second claim, he argues that the court abused its discretion by not imposing sanctions on the plaintiff after finding that she wilfully failed to prevent the minor children from being inappropriately exposed to the parties' disputes over financial issues in violation of the explicit terms of their marital separation agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46182-
Belton v. Dragoi (“At issue on appeal is whether the trial court
properly rendered summary judgment for the defendants as to the plaintiff’s
claims that the defendants committed a battery on him and falsely arrested him.
Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded (1) with
respect to the alleged battery, that there are no genuine issues of material
fact as to whether the defendants used more than reasonable force during the
altercation and (2) with respect to the alleged false arrest, that (a) the
defendants were entitled to governmental immunity because the plaintiff had
failed to raise a claim of negligent false arrest and (b) there are no genuine
issues of material fact as to whether the defendants had probable cause to
arrest the plaintiff. We agree with the plaintiff’s first claim but disagree
with his other claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the
trial court.”)
AC47010 - S. S. v. D. M. (Application for order of civil protection; stalking; §
46b-16a; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly continued
in effect and further modified an order of civil protection for the benefit of
the plaintiff without making certain requisite factual findings. We agree and,
accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46606 -
Mills v. Statewide Grievance Committee (“The committee found that the
plaintiff acted incompetently in violation of rule 1.1 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct by failing to name his client’s business as a party to her
lawsuit and by failing to provide proof of the client’s individual damages. The
plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court improperly dismissed his appeal
because (1) the record does not provide clear and convincing evidence that he
acted incompetently in violation of rule 1.1, and (2) the committee abused its
discretion by ordering him to complete three hours of continuing legal education.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46307 - Thoma v. Watson ("The plaintiff, Reinald E. Thoma, as trustee of the Reinald E. Thoma Revocable Trust (trust), appeals following a trial to the court from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant David Watson on the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) made several errors related to the issue of permissive use of the disputed property, including improperly raising that issue sua sponte after the close of evidence despite the defendant's failure to raise it by way of special defense; (2) made additional errors 'concerning issues of intent, motive, and subjective understanding'; (3) erroneously found that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case by clear and convincing evidence; and (4) failed to comply with General Statutes § 47-31 (f) by not determining the parties' respective interests in the disputed property. We disagree with the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC47018 - Samsel v. Parks ("In this summary process action, the defendant, William Parks, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff, Jozef Samsel. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to open the judgment. We dismiss the defendant's appeal as moot.")
AC46113 -
State ex rel. Dunn v. Connelly (“On appeal, the defendant claims that
(1) the court improperly denied her motion in limine, which sought to exclude
any evidence seized following a warrantless search of her property, on the
basis of its determination that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil
proceedings, and (2) the animal welfare statute, General Statutes (Supp. 2022)
§ 22-329a2 (g) and (h), violates her right a civil jury trial under article
first, § 19, of the Connecticut constitution. We disagree and affirm the judgment
of the court.”)
AC46897 - Brookfield v. Gohn ("The self-represented defendant, Hollene Gohn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiffs, the town of Brookfield (town) and Francis W. Lollie, the town's zoning enforcement officer. On appeal, it appears that the defendant is claiming that by enjoining her from violating certain of the Brookfield Zoning Regulations (zoning regulations), the court erred by (1) incorrectly interpreting the applicable regulatory provisions, (2) violating her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, (3) holding an evidentiary hearing after the close of trial, (4) granting the relief sought by the plaintiffs despite insufficient evidence, and (5) failing to render its decision within 120 days. We are not persuaded by the defendant's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")
- SC20995 - In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest
Warrant (“The plaintiffs in error, Diahann Phillips, Alison
Scofield, and Albert Bottone, filed this writ of error challenging the decision
by the Honorable Thomas J. Welch, declining to issue arrest warrants under General
Statutes § 9-368 for two individuals who allegedly violated election laws. The
defendant in error, the state of Connecticut, contends that we should dismiss
this writ of error because the plaintiffs in error are neither classically nor
statutorily aggrieved by the denial of their arrest warrant applications.
Although we disagree with the defendant in error that the plaintiffs in error
are required to establish statutory aggrievement to bring a writ of error, we
dismiss the writ on the ground that the plaintiffs in error are not classically
aggrieved.”)
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Thursday, October 3rd
- Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
Friday, October 4th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
- Stamford Law Library will be closed from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Monday, October 7th
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, October 8th
- Middletown Law Library opens at 11:15 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
Thursday, October 10th
- Stamford Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 14, for October 1, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 225 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 611 - 611
- Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 733 - 783)
- Volume 349: Orders (Pages 922 - 923)
- Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 228: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 290 - 444)
- Volume 228: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 904)
- Volume 228: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC46527 - Duso v. Groton (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action because the
plaintiffs lack standing and their claim is not ripe, (2) improperly denied the
defendant’s motion to strike the complaint because the plaintiffs had failed to
join a necessary party, (3) misinterpreted the language of a collective
bargaining agreement, and (4) improperly awarded damages. The plaintiffs cross appeal
from the judgment of the court denying their motion for sanctions. We affirm
the judgment of the court.”)
AC46362 - Walencewicz v. Jealous Monk, LLC ("In this premises liability action, the defendant, Jealous Monk, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Noemi Walencewicz. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the verdict because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that the defendant had constructive notice of the specific defect and that the specific defect caused her injuries, and (2) refused to charge the jury on the definitions of negligence and reasonable care. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46053 - State v. Daniels - (“The defendant, Patricia Daniels, appeals from the judgment
of conviction, following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in
violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1) (intentional manslaughter). The
defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the
conviction and (2) the court committed instructional error in its jury
instruction concerning the essential element of intent. We affirm the judgment
of the trial court.”)
AC46407 - Brown v. Commissioner of Correction (“In this certified appeal, the petitioner claims that the
court (1) erroneously found that no agreement existed between the state and
certain witnesses in exchange for their testimony, (2) erroneously found that a
bond modification for a witness who testified at the petitioner’s criminal
trial did not constitute a benefit to that witness, and (3) improperly
concluded that his due process rights were not violated by the state’s failure
to correct misleading testimony. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC46334 - Crossing Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Miller ("These related appeals brought by the self-represented defendant, Josephine S. Miller, concern two distinct foreclosure proceedings involving the same real property. In Docket No. AC 46334, the defendant appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of The Crossing Condominium Association, Inc. (association), claiming that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to open and vacate that judgment. In Docket No. AC 46586, the defendant appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (bank), claiming that the court abused its discretion in so doing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Thursday, September 26th
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Hartford Law Library closes at 2:45 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 2:45 p.m.
- New Haven Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
Friday, September 27th
- Danbury Law Library is closed from 2:45 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library is closed from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
Monday, September 30th
- New Britain Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, October 1st
- Hartford Law Library is closed from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library is closed.
- New Haven Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
Wednesday, October 2nd
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
Thursday, October 3rd
- Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
Friday, October 4th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library will be closed from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.