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.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.”)

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

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.”)

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions

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.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

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.")

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

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.”)

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

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.")

• Posted in:
• Land Use Law,
• Recent Opinions

• 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.”)
  
  
  • Concurrence

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

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

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

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.”)

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

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.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

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.”)

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

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.”)

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

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.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47325 - In re Jadiel B. ("The respondent father, Joel B.-R., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Jadiel B. (Jadiel). On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court erred in determining that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with Jadiel and (2) the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from services. The respondent also contends that General Statutes § 17a-112, as applied, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 13, for September 24, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 695 - 733)
• Volume 349: Orders (Pages 920 - 922)
• Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 228: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 206 - 289)
• Volume 228: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 228: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC46940 - Middletown v. Wagner ("In this animal welfare action, the self-represented defendant Justin Wagner appeals from the judgment of the trial court vesting ownership of the dogs seized from a barn leased by the defendant and Destiny Jennings, together with the puppies subsequently born to those dogs, in the plaintiff, the city of Middletown, after it found that the dogs were neglected. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court erred when it denied the defendant's motion to return property and suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless search and seizure of the property, (2) General Statutes §§ 22-329a and 53-247, as applied to the defendant and Jennings, are void for vagueness, (3) the police did not provide Jennings with fair notice of the law, (4) the court did not apply the proper legal standard, and (5) there was insufficient evidence presented at the hearing to support a finding that the dogs in the barn were neglected. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46178 - Waterbury v. Brennan (“In this action for declaratory relief, the defendant Janet Brennan1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the city of Waterbury (city). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied her motion for summary judgment and, relatedly, that it improperly granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the city. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC45467 - Brennan v. Waterbury (“The defendant, the city of Waterbury (city), appeals from the judgment of the Compensation Review Board (board), affirming in part the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner (commissioner) in favor of the plaintiff, Janet Brennan, the executrix of the estate of Thomas Brennan. On appeal, the city claims that the board improperly affirmed the commissioner’s conclusions that (1) the plaintiff’s entitlement to heart and hypertension benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 7-433c matured during the lifetime of the decedent, Thomas Brennan, (2) the plaintiff is entitled to statutory interest on § 7-433c benefits, and (3) the city unduly delayed payment on, and unreasonably contested, the decedent’s claim for § 7-433c benefits. In light of our resolution of the related appeal in Waterbury v. Brennan, 228 Conn. App. 206, A.3d (2024), which also was released today, we conclude that the present appeal is moot, as this court can provide the city no practical relief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Workers' Compensation Law

AC 45535 - Ciarleglio v. Martin ("The defendant, Miriam Martin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting an annulment of her marriage to the decedent, Vincent Ciarleglio. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacked standing to continue the annulment action after the decedent’s death, (2) the plaintiff’s action to annul the marriage following the death of the decedent constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a legally valid marriage, and (3) the court held the plaintiff to an incorrect burden of proof when it granted the annulment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 12, for September 17, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 513 - 695)
• Volume 349: Orders (Pages 919 - 920)
• Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 228: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 206)
• Volume 228: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases

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