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.
Recent Opinions

Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5476

AC44554 - Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC (“Pursuant to Connecticut wage laws, an employer may claim a credit for gratuities received by service employees in the restaurant industry as a percentage of the minimum fair wage (tip credit) it would otherwise be required to pay, and the Labor Commissioner (commissioner), acting through the Department of Labor (department), is tasked with adopting regulations regarding the tip credit. See General Statutes § 31-60 (b); see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-62-E1 et seq. (March 8, 2015). The defendant, C & L Diners, LLC, appeals, and the plaintiff, Valerie Nettleton, cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff on her claims for violations of the minimum wage regulations. The court rendered summary judgment for the plaintiff on her complaint alleging that the defendant violated §§ 31-62-E3 and 31-62-E4 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies and for the defendant on its good faith defense to the plaintiff’s claim for penalty damages pursuant to General Statutes (Supp. 2016) § 31-68 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) § 31-68 (a) provides a private cause of action for a recordkeeping violation under § 31-62-E3 of the regulations and (2) the ‘side work’ performed by the plaintiff while working as a server constituted ‘nonservice’ work under § 31-62-E4 of the regulations. In her cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant established its good faith defense. We agree with the defendant’s first claim and the plaintiff’s claim and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings.”)


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5475

AC44909 - Cody Real Estate, LLC v. G & H Catering, Inc. (Nonpayment of rent under commercial lease agreement, breach of guarantee agreement; "In this action brought by the plaintiff landlord, Cody Real Estate, LLC, against the defendant tenant, G & H Catering, Inc., now known as Garelick & Herbs of New Canaan, Inc. (tenant), for nonpayment of rent due under a commercial lease agreement, and against the defendant guarantors of the lease, Garelick & Herbs of Greenwich, Inc., and Garelick & Herbs, Inc., now known as Garelick & Herbs of Westport, Inc. (corporate guarantors), the corporate guarantors appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered against them, following a trial to the court, in the amount of $362,948.61 for unpaid rent and other charges stemming from the tenant's breach of the lease. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5473

AC45186 - R. H. v. M. H. (Dissolution of marriage; emergency ex parte order of custody; postdissolution motion to modify custody; "In this custody dispute, the defendant mother, M. H., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postdissolution motion of the plaintiff father, R. H., for modification of custody and access seeking sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two minor children. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff's October 30, 2019 application for an emergency ex parte order for custody of the children, (2) delegated its judicial authority by giving the plaintiff decision-making authority over the defendant's access to the children, and (3) infringed on her privacy rights, first by allowing testimony about her medical information and, second, by including her medical information in its November 18, 2021 memorandum of decision without sealing the decision. We agree with the defendant's second claim but disagree with her remaining claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - May 30, 2023

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5471

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 47, for May 30, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 564 - 604)
  • Volume 346: Orders (Pages 1021 - 1022)
  • Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 219: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 553 - 629)
  • Volume 219: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 902)
  • Volume 219: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices


Business Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5470

SC20647 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (“The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank), brought this action against the defendants, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), and Alexander Vik, SHI’s sole shareholder and director, seeking, inter alia, to enforce an approximately $243 million foreign judgment (English judgment) against Vik. Following a five day trial to the court, the trial court denied Deutsche Bank’s requested relief and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, Deutsche Bank claims that the trial court improperly declined to pierce SHI’s corporate veil and to hold Vik jointly and severally liable with SHI for the English judgment. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Carey, Sean

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5469

AC45565 - John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Curtin ("On appeal, Curtin and Schalm claim that the court improperly determined that Schalm was not entitled to the insurance proceeds because a provision in the dissolution separation agreement, which required the decedent to maintain certain life insurance designating Schalm as the beneficiary, set forth Curtin’s remedy for the decedent’s failure to maintain such insurance. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5468

AC42991 - State v. Olivero (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court incorrectly denied his pretrial motion to dismiss the charges of first degree burglary and home invasion, (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his requests to present testimony in support of his pretrial motion to dismiss, (3) the trial judge, White, J., improperly failed, sua sponte, to disqualify himself from presiding over the defendant’s jury trial because Judge White previously had denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and used the term ‘victim’ in various pretrial hearings, (4) the trial court improperly restricted his ability to cross-examine the victim concerning the content of certain text messages, and (5) the prosecutor’s use of the term ‘victim’ during the trial and in closing argument deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5467

AC45043 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Weinbaum ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant, Sholeh Weinbaum, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-4. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied her motion to set aside the default that was entered against her for failing to plead because the plaintiff's motion for judgment was filed prematurely. Alternatively, she makes the related claim that the default was set aside by operation of law when she filed her answer and special defenses. Lastly, she claims that the court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to set aside the default. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - May 23, 2023

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5464

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 46, for May 23, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 346: Orders (Pages 1019 - 1020)
  • Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 219: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 343 - 552)
  • Volume 219: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
  • Volume 219: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5460

AC45249 - Ahern v. Board of Education (Negligence; summary judgment; final judgments; governmental immunity pursuant to statute (§ 52-557n); indemnification pursuant to statute (§ 10-235); "The plaintiff, Nicole Ahern, a former student of Coginchaug Regional High School (high school) and a former member of the high school's cheerleading squad, brought this action against the defendants, the Board of Education of Regional School District Number 13 (board); Kathryn Y. Veronesi, the superintendent of Regional School District Number 13; Paula Murphy, the high school's head cheerleading coach; and Marissa Barletta, the high school's assistant cheerleading coach. The plaintiff alleged that, due to the negligence of the defendants and the board, she was injured while attempting a stunt during the high school's cheerleading practice. The plaintiff appeals from the partial summary judgment the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants and the board on the ground that governmental immunity barred certain counts of the action.

The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly rendered summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether she was subject to imminent and apparent harm and was an identifiable individual pursuant to the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity. After oral argument, this court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether this appeal should be dismissed, in part, for the lack of a final judgment as to the board because the trial court did not dispose of all of the counts brought against it.

We conclude that (1) the summary judgment rendered with respect to some, but not all, counts of the complaint brought against the board is not an appealable final judgment as to the board, and (2) the court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of Veronesi, Murphy, and Barletta on the ground that they are entitled to governmental immunity because there is no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff was not subject to imminent and apparent harm. Accordingly, we dismiss the plaintiff's appeal as it pertains to the board and affirm the court's judgment in favor of Veronesi, Murphy, and Barletta.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5461

AC45134 - Padula v. Arborio (Adverse possession; "The defendants, Aquino Arborio and Faith Arborio, appeal from the judgment, rendered after a trial to the court, declaring the plaintiffs, Antonio Padula and Giuseppina Padula, to be the owners, by adverse possession, of a certain strip of land lying between the adjacent properties of the parties. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the plaintiffs could not prevail on their adverse possession claim because they never personally possessed the property in question, (2) the court incorrectly awarded the plaintiffs an area beyond that which was expressly sought in the complaint, and (3) the court incorrectly concluded that the plaintiffs had possessed the disputed property for the requisite period of fifteen years. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the court.")

AC45303 - Kohl's Dept. Store, Inc. v. Rocky Hill (Property tax assessment appeal; "This appeal arises from a municipal tax appeal filed by the plaintiff, Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., pursuant to General Statutes § 12-117a, against the defendant, the town of Rocky Hill (town), challenging its assessments of personal property located at 1899 Silas Deane Highway (store) for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. The town appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff's appeal and ordering the reduction of the town's tax assessments levied against the plaintiff's personal property. The town claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the valuations of the plaintiff's expert appraiser and (2) made clearly erroneous findings that the plaintiff was aggrieved and as to the true and actual value of its personal property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Carey, Sean

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5462

AC44979 - Carter v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court incorrectly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to investigate evidence containing biological material found at the crime scene and to submit that evidence for DNA analysis. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC44160 - Sease v. Commissioner of Correction (“Having made no determination in Sease I as to whether the petitioner ultimately prevailed on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and having left undecided the petitioner’s additional appellate claims, we must now resolve, after remand, the following claims of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) determined on remand that his trial counsel’s failure to investigate his mental health background prior to sentencing and his failure to focus further on that background during sentencing arguments did not fall below the exercise of reasonable professional judgment under the first prong of Strickland, (2) rejected his claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge uncharged misconduct testimony by a state’s witness, and (3) rejected his claim that the state violated his right to due process by the knowing presentation of false testimony. The habeas court denied the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal, and he claims that the court abused its discretion in so deciding. We agree with only the petitioner’s claim that the court improperly determined that his trial counsel had not rendered constitutionally deficient performance at sentencing, and we disagree with the petitioner’s other claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court only with respect to the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, vacate the petitioner’s sentences, and order a new sentencing hearing.”)

AC44892 - Reese v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner raises two substantive claims: (1) Judge Newson improperly dismissed one count of his amended petition on the basis of res judicata and (2) Judge Chaplin improperly denied his motion to sequester one of the respondent’s witnesses, Attorney C. Robert Satti, who prosecuted the petitioner in his underlying criminal trial and prosecuted one of the petitioner’s witnesses at the habeas trial for committing perjury during the petitioner’s criminal trial. The respondent argues that the petitioner’s two claims are unreviewable because he did not identify them in his petition for certification. In response, the petitioner, after recognizing that decisions of this court require that any claims on appeal be presented first in a petition for certification, argues that ‘‘it can hardly be gainsaid that the claims of error [the petitioner] has enumerated in this appeal were not raised before, and decided by, the habeas court.’’ He concludes by arguing that, ‘‘although the petition for certification to appeal that was filed in this case is broadly worded, the claims that [the petitioner] has pursued on appeal clearly fall within its penumbra. The habeas court’s denial of the petition for certification in its entirety was a discretionary act, subject to review by this court. Further, and more importantly, the claims were fully litigated below, both by way of written motions and at oral argument. Consequently, there can be no contention that it would be an ‘ambuscade’ of the habeas court for this court to assess the claims on their merits.’’ We are not persuaded by the petitioner’s arguments.”)


Medical Malpractice Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5459

AC43955 - Perdikis v. Klarsfeld (Medical malpractice; general verdict rule; "In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff Dimitri Perdikis appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Jay H. Klarsfeld, a physician and surgeon. The plaintiff claims that the court erred by denying his request to charge the jury that it could not consider his postsurgical actions as a cause of his injuries and, instead, instructing the jury that it could consider his postsurgical actions in its causation analysis. We conclude that, in the context of the present case, the introduction of competent evidence—an expert medical opinion stated with a degree of reasonable medical probability—was required to allow the jury to infer a causal link between the plaintiff's actions and his injury. Because no such evidence was presented at trial, we conclude that the court's jury instruction was improper and harmful and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.")


Connecticut Law Journal - May 16, 2023

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5456

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 45, for May 16, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 552 - 563)
  • Volume 346: Orders (Pages 1012 - 1018)
  • Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 219: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 211 - 343)
  • Volume 219: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
  • Volume 219: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5453

AC44738 - State v. Ebron (Motion to correct illegal sentence; motion to dismiss; "The defendant, Brian Ebron, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22. On appeal, he argues that the court erred when it dismissed his motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the motion set forth a colorable claim that his sentence is illegal or was imposed in an illegal manner. Specifically, the defendant, who was twenty years old when he committed the crime for which he was convicted, argues that his thirty-two year sentence for that conviction violates the prohibition in the eighth amendment to the United States constitution against cruel and unusual punishment, his right to due process under article first, §§ 8 and 9, of the Connecticut constitution and his state and federal constitutional rights to equal protection under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 20, of the Connecticut constitution, notwithstanding the fact that he will be parole eligible after serving approximately twenty-seven years of his thirty-two year sentence. We agree with the defendant that the court improperly dismissed his motion to correct on the ground that he failed to state a colorable claim, but we nevertheless conclude that his claims fail as a matter of law. As a result, we reverse the judgment dismissing the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence and remand the case with direction to render judgment denying the defendant's motion to correct.")

AC38602 - State v. Taveras (Violation of probation; probation revocation hearing; "This appeal returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court. In State v. Taveras, 183 Conn. App. 354, 356, 193 A.3d 561 (2018), rev'd, 342 Conn. 563, 271 A.3d 123 (2022), the defendant, Kerlyn M. Taveras, appealed from the judgments of the trial court finding him in violation of his probation and revoking his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32, following his arrest on a charge of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 (a). In a divided opinion, this court concluded that the state had failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant's remarks during an incident at his son's preschool, which formed the basis for the breach of the peace charge and his violation of probation, constituted either "`fighting words'" or a "`true threat,'" and, therefore, the remarks were protected under the first amendment to the United States constitution. Accordingly, this court reversed the judgments of the trial court and remanded the cases with direction to render judgments in favor of the defendant. As a result of that conclusion, this court did not address the other claims raised by the defendant in his appeal.

After granting the state's petition for certification to appeal, our Supreme Court disagreed with this court's conclusion that the defendant's remarks warranted first amendment protection. State v. Taveras, 342 Conn. 563, 580, 271 A.3d 123 (2022). Our Supreme Court thus reversed the judgment of this court and remanded the case to us with direction to consider the defendant's remaining claims on appeal.

In accordance with that order, we now consider whether the trial court improperly admitted into evidence at the probation revocation hearing the testimony of Monica Bevilaqua, the director of the preschool where the incident took place, as to statements made to her by Sondra Cherney, the preschool's assistant education manager. The defendant claims that (1) the admission of Bevilaqua's testimony violated his due process right to cross-examine Cherney, and (2) Bevilaqua's testimony concerning Cherney's hearsay statements should have been excluded because the statements were unreliable and uncorroborated. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5454

AC44745 - Valentine v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; "In 1998, a jury found the petitioner, Daryl Valentine, guilty of two counts of murder and other offenses stemming from a 1991 altercation outside a diner in New Haven during which three men were shot, two of them fatally. The petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and, thereafter, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. He subsequently filed the present habeas action, which was dismissed in part and denied in part. Following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner appeals from the judgment of the habeas court, claiming that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) improperly concluded, first, that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by improprieties of the trial prosecutor during closing argument and, relatedly, that he was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of the failure of appellate counsel and first habeas counsel to raise that due process claim on direct appeal and in the first habeas petition, respectively, and (3) improperly denied his motion to open the evidence. We agree with the petitioner that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. We nevertheless agree with the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, that the petitioner has neither established that prosecutorial improprieties deprived him of his right to a fair trial nor has he demonstrated that appellate counsel and first habeas counsel were ineffective in failing to raise that claim. We also conclude that the denial of the petitioner's motion to open the evidence was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5452

AC45891 - In re Daniel D. (Termination of Parental Rights; "The respondent mother, Chrystal P., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to two of her minor children, Daniel D. and James D. The respondent claims that the court improperly (1) admitted into evidence certain documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule; and (2) concluded that the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts to reunite her with James or that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")



Criminal Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5450

SC20654 - State v. Malone (Whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction over appeal of denial of motion to dismiss based on right to speedy trial; Whether Supreme Court should grant permission to file late appeal; whether trial court properly accepted nolle; whether entry of nolle and denial of motion to dismiss violated defendant's right to speedy trial; "In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant, Erick Malone, asks this court to determine whether the trial court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss criminal charges the state has reinstituted against him after the state previously entered and the trial court accepted a nolle prosequi on the ground that the state was unable to locate material witnesses. More specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion because the state intentionally had delayed the prosecution in violation of his right to a speedy trial. We do not address the merits of this claim because we agree with the state that the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss does not constitute a final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.")


Connecticut Law Journal - May 9, 2023

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5446

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 44, for May 9, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents

  • Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 534 - 552)
  • Volume 346: Orders (Pages 928 - 1012)
  • Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 219: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 149 - 211)
  • Volume 219: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies