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.
AC41792 - Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC (Real property; permanent injunction; "The defendants Madison Beach Hotel, LLC, and Madison Beach Hotel of Florida, LLC, appeal from the trial court's judgment granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs Cecilia Pfister, Margaret P. Carbajal, Katherine Spence, Emile J. Geisenheimer, Susan F. Geisenheimer, Henry L. Platt, Douglas J. Crowley, and 33 MBW, LLC. Specifically, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in holding that their use of a town owned parcel of land to host public concerts violates the zoning regulations of the town of Madison. We agree with the defendants and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
AC39630 - Petrucelli v. City of Meriden (Zoning; municipal blight citation; anti-blight ordinance; "The petitioner, Arthur Petrucelli, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the respondent, the city of Meriden (city), following a de novo hearing held on his petition to reopen an assessment entered against him by a citation hearing officer for violation of the city's anti-blight ordinance. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by precluding, in whole or in part, two of his witnesses from testifying, (2) erroneously concluded that the city had not violated his due process rights, (3) erroneously concluded that the city's anti-blight ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him, and (4) erroneously concluded that there was sufficient evidence establishing his noncompliance with the anti-blight ordinance. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC42251 - Vaicunas v.
Gaylord ("The plaintiffs, David Vaicunas and Joseph Kobos, appeal from
the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Regina R.
Gaylord, Kevin McGuire, Deborah Foster, John McGuire, and Scott McGuire, on the
count of the complaint alleging undue influence exerted on Helen Rachel in
amending The Helen K. Rachel Revocable Trust Indenture. The plaintiffs also
appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it granted the
motion by the defendants to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of Vaicunas
on the count for adverse possession of certain real property owned by Helen
Rachel. On appeal, Vaicunas claims that the court improperly set aside the jury
verdict with respect to adverse possession, and both plaintiffs claim that the
court (1) abused its discretion by declining to admit the plaintiffs’ offer of
evidence as to the character of Helen Rachel, which was relevant to their claim
for undue influence and (2) improperly charged the jury on the law of undue
influence. We conclude that the trial court properly set aside the verdict on
the claim for adverse possession and, as to the plaintiffs’ claim of undue
influence, we reject their assertions of evidentiary and instructional error on
the part of the court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
SC202208, SC202209 – Schwerin v. Ratcliffe (“The primary issue in these appeals is whether the trial court properly determined the correct generation to serve as the root for the per stirpes distribution of two family trusts.")