AC47229 - K. S. v. C. S. ("The plaintiff, K. S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, C. S., which included a finding of contempt against the plaintiff. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) entered an order in the judgment of dissolution prohibiting contact between the parties’ minor child and the plaintiff’s boyfriend, A, (2) awarded the defendant final decision-making authority with respect to the child’s medical and educational issues, (3) granted the defendant’s motion for contempt alleging violations of the court’s interim order prohibiting contact between the child and A, (4) ordered the plaintiff to pay attorney’s fees in connection with the defendant’s motions for contempt, (5) entered orders regarding child support, specifically challenging its factual findings as to the parties’ incomes, and (6) entered orders regarding the division of marital property, specifically challenging its factual finding regarding the equity in the marital home.

"We disagree with the plaintiff’s first and second claims. With respect to the third and fourth claims, we conclude that, although the court did not abuse its discretion in finding the plaintiff in contempt of its no contact interim order, its awards of attorney’s fees constituted an abuse of its discretion. Accordingly, we remand the case for reconsideration of the attorney’s fees awards. Finally, we agree with the plaintiff’s fifth and sixth claims and conclude that the court made clearly erroneous factual findings underlying its child support and division of marital property orders. Because these orders are not severable from the other financial orders, we reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the financial orders and remand this case for a new trial on all financial issues.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47394 - Zhuleku v. Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates ("In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs, Nexhmije Zhuleku (Zhuleku) and her husband, Fuat Zhuleku (husband), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered after the court directed the verdict in favor of the defendant Lauren Perugini (substitute defendant), in her capacity as executrix of the estate of the defendant Josephine Perugini (Perugini), and, after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates (NVRA) and Gregory D. Gersten. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) sustained the defendants' objection to their amended revised complaint and (2) instructed the jury after denying their requests to charge. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Medical Malpractice Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46428 - State v. Colon (“The defendant, Luis E. Colon, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of possession of a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) (1) (count one) and operation of a motor vehicle while having an elevated blood alcohol content in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (2) (count two). The defendant claims that (1) the trial court committed plain error in failing, sua sponte, to sever the two offenses joined in the same information and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction with respect to count two. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the court.”)

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

AC47311 - Aspen Properties Group, LLC v. Roberts-Joachim ("The defendant Cathleen Roberts-Joachim, now known as Cathleen Roberts, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered following a court trial in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity but solely as Owner Trustee of the Aspen G Trust, a Delaware Statutory Trust. In this appeal, the defendant's principal claim is that the trial court improperly failed to find that one of the substitute plaintiff's predecessors, PNC Bank, N.A. (PNC), abandoned the mortgage that the substitute plaintiff sought to foreclose. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for the purpose of setting a new sale date.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20983 - State v. Wade (“In this certified appeal, the defendant, Jaquan Wade, appeals from the Appellate Court’s judgment affirming the trial court’s revocation of his probation and imposition of a thirteen year term of incarceration. The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that, at his probation revocation hearing, he had abandoned his argument that the trial court should engage in a due process balancing under State v. Crespo, 190 Conn. App. 639, 646–48, 211 A.3d 1027 (2019), before admitting into evidence a witness’ out-of-court identification when that witness was not present and available for cross-examination. We agree and reverse the Appellate Court’s judgment.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 42, for April 15, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 722 - 745)
• Volume 351: Orders (Pages 919 - 922)
• Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 232: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 104)
• Volume 232: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Connecticut Practice Book Amendments

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

AC47980 - In re Christopher C. ("The respondent father, Christopher C., 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, Christopher C., and denying the respondent's motions for transfer of guardianship and for out-of-state placement. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court abused its discretion in denying the respondent's oral motion for disqualification. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46927 - Torrington v. Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 442 ("The defendants, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 442 (union), and Gerald Peters, appeal from the judgment of the trial court vacating an arbitration award that ordered the plaintiff, the city of Torrington (city), to, inter alia, reinstate Peters as a sergeant in the Torrington Police Department (department).On appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court (1) improperly concluded that the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law, (2) improperly concluded that the award violated public policy, and (3) abused its discretion by remanding the case to a new arbitration panel. We agree with the defendants' first two claims. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In light of our disposition of the defendants' first two claims, we do not reach the merits of their third claim.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47221 - Fezollari v. Jauzovic (“On appeal, the defendant claims that, at the hearing in damages, the court (1) improperly denied her the opportunity to present evidence to mitigate damages as provided for in Practice Book §§ 17- 34 (a) and 17-40 and (2) used an incorrect measure of damages in calculating the damages award. We agree with the defendant as to both claims and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the court as to the award of damages and remand the case for a new hearing in damages.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47261 - Smith v. H. Pearce Real Estate Co. (“In this appeal from the judgments in two consolidated actions arising from an asset purchase agreement, the plaintiffs in the first action, DeForest W. Smith and DeForest Industries, Inc. (DII), challenge the judgments of the trial court, rendered after a court trial. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) found that the defendant H. Pearce Real Estate Company, Inc. (Pearce) was entitled to a setoff for the overpayment of a commission that it previously had paid to Smith, (2) concluded that Smith was personally liable to Pearce for the setoff, and (3) rejected their claim that certain lease renewals were excluded from its sale of assets to Pearce. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46948 - Prioleau v. Agosta ("In this child custody action, the self-represented plaintiff, Keith Prioleau, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct a child support order entered by a family support magistrate in a separate child support action and his subsequent motion to reargue his motion to correct. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erroneously concluded that it lacked the authority to modify the child support order. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47407 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Klein ("In this residential foreclosure action, the defendant Samuel Klein appeals from the trial court's approval of the committee sale and the committee deed in favor of the plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in granting the committee's motion for approval of the committee sale because (1) the motion itself did not attach the committee report and/or (2) the court granted the motion without providing the defendant with an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is affirmed.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC48130 - In re Tiara E. ("The respondent father, Anthony E., 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, Tiara E. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly (1) relied on information contained in a social study that was admitted into evidence in determining that the petitioner had furnished sufficient evidence that the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts to reunify him with Tiara and (2) determined that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from the services offered by the department. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20913 - Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC v. White Eagle Society of Brotherly Help, Inc., Group 315, Polish National Alliance ("The named defendant, The White Eagle Society of Brotherly Help, Inc., Group 315, Polish National Alliance, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd. See Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC v. White Eagle Society of Brotherly Help, Inc., Group 315, Polish National Alliance, 220 Conn. App. 770, 772–73, 783, 300 A.3d 1167 (2023). The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court's determination that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the tax liens at issue had been validly assigned to the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC21011 - Commonwealth Servicing Group, LLC v. Dept. of Banking ("In Persels & Associates, LLC v. Banking Commissioner, 318 Conn. 652, 122 A.3d 592 (2015) (Persels), we held that a law firm that provides debt negotiation services is presumed to be engaged in the practice of law and, thus, comes within the Judicial Branch’s exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law and falls outside of the statutory authority of the Commissioner of Banking (commissioner) to enforce Connecticut’s debt negotiation statutes, General Statutes §§ 36a-71 through 36a-671f. See id., 674–76. The primary question in this interlocutory appeal is whether a law firm and an entity that provides paraprofessional services to the law firm must exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in the Superior Court to adjudicate that threshold issue—whether the commissioner has exceeded his statutory authority by bringing an administrative enforcement action against them.

The plaintiffs, The Law Offices of Amber Florio, PLLC, doing business as Commonwealth Law Group (Commonwealth Law), and Commonwealth Servicing Group, LLC (Commonwealth Servicing), filed the underlying complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting that the trial court determine whether the administrative enforcement proceeding the commissioner had begun against Commonwealth Servicing exceeded the commissioner’s statutory enforcement authority.

The defendant, the Department of Banking, moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies because the commissioner, not the court, must first determine the commissioner’s own authority to regulate the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court incorrectly denied its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s decision.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 41, for April 8, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 701-721)
• Volume 351: Orders (Pages 916 - 918)
• Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 231: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 789 - 876)
• Volume 231: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

AC47098 - Schneider v. Federman (“The defendant, Martha Federman, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to open the default judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Jeremiah T. Schneider III and Sara Papasidero. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied that motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46835 - Bonilla v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court committed plain error when the habeas judge failed to disqualify himself on the ground that he had represented the petitioner in an unrelated matter several years earlier. The petitioner also claims that the court erred in rejecting his claims of ineffective assistance of his prior habeas counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC 47492 - Laffin v. Laffin ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the self-represented defendant, Brian E. Laffin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for modification of his obligation to pay periodic alimony to the self-represented plaintiff, Heather M. Laffin, now known as Heather M. Bruneau. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in (1) failing to find that his job loss constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of his alimony obligation pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86 (a), and (2) failing to address his claim that alleged false representations by the plaintiff regarding her financial condition warranted modification of his obligation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45916 - State v. Abdulaziz (Health insurance fraud; “The defendant claims that his conviction of health insurance fraud cannot be reconciled with his simultaneous acquittal, based upon the same alleged underlying conduct, of larceny in the first degree by defrauding a public community in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 53a-122 (a) (4). Specifically, he argues that the court had acquitted him of larceny in the first degree based upon the state’s failure to prove the ‘obtaining’ and ‘value’ elements of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt and, thus, that it should also have acquitted him of health insurance fraud, which he claims required proof of those same elements to convict him in this case. He further argues that the court later compounded its initial error by reversing his ‘acquittal on the “value” element of larceny in the first degree when it ruled on the state’s [posttrial] motion to correct an illegal sentence.’ On that basis, he claims on appeal that the court (1) violated the prohibition against successive prosecutions under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution by reversing his acquittal on the value element of the larceny charge, and (2) violated his constitutional right to due process by convicting him of health insurance fraud ‘without finding every fact necessary to constitute the crime.’ We reject the defendant’s claims and affirm his challenged conviction of health insurance fraud.”)

AC47093 - State v. Toste (Murder; sentence modification; “The defendant, William Toste, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his application for a sentence modification pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-39. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in finding that he had failed to establish good cause to modify his sentence. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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