The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 30, for January 21, 2025 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 86 - 142)
• Volume 351: Orders (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 230: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 187 - 335)
• Volume 230: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 230: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC20950 - Murphy v. Rosen ("The use of derogatory remarks on social media and elsewhere has become commonplace in political discourse, with words and phrases taking on different meanings depending on the context in which the expression is made, the intentions of the speaker, and the viewpoint of the audience. This case arises out of heated political dialogue that took place on a town's social media page. The plaintiff, Sean Murphy, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which granted the special motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Beth Rosen, pursuant to Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute. See General Statutes § 52-196a. The trial court determined, as a matter of law, that the statements made by the defendant labeling the plaintiff as a "white supremacist" were nonactionable opinions. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy his burden of showing that there was probable cause that he would succeed on the merits of his defamation per se claim, as required by § 52-196a (e) (3). The primary issue on appeal is whether the characterization of the plaintiff as a "white supremacist" is, standing alone, an actionable fact constituting defamation per se. We conclude that, although calling someone a "white supremacist" or a "racist" is a serious accusation, the meanings of these terms are inherently subjective. As a result, we join numerous other jurisdictions that have concluded that these terms are not objectively verifiable and do not, without more, imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts. Because the trial court correctly determined that the defendant's allegedly defamatory statements constituted nonactionable opinions, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC21008 - State v. Inzitari (One count of possessing child pornography in the first degree; fifty or more visual depictions of child pornography; artifacts of deleted images; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the court improperly instructed the jury that it could consider the so-called Dost factors in determining whether the images introduced by the state constituted a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area, (3) the court erred in not giving a unanimity instruction, and (4) the court abused its discretion in admitting two of the state’s exhibits. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC46494 - Bouazza v. Geico General Ins. Co. (“The plaintiff, Saadia Bouazza, appeals from the judgment of the trial court with respect to its dismissal of her claim of bad faith against the defendant, Geico General Insurance Company. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the litigation privilege applied and deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, improperly dismissed her claim of bad faith. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that (1) the litigation privilege was not applicable in this case, (2) the parties should have had an opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the court ruling on this issue, (3) the court’s ruling fails to articulate how the test set forth in Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582, 271 A.3d 53 (2022), for determining whether the litigation privilege applies, was met in this case, and (4) the court improperly considered the offer of compromise filed by the plaintiff in support of its decision. We conclude that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the litigation privilege and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46813, AC46890 - In re Cunha ("These consolidated appeals arise from disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, Nickola J. Cunha, related to her disbarment from the practice of law. In Docket No. AC 46813, the respondent appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering that funds she claimed as attorney's fees be disbursed to her former clients (postdisbarment action). In Docket No. AC 46890, the respondent appeals from the same judgment and, additionally, the trial court's judgment of dismissal rendered in a separate action commenced by the respondent in which she sought a declaratory judgment with respect to attorney's fees related to her representation of former clients (declaratory judgment action). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) improperly permitted third parties to intervene in the postdisbarment action where the intervenors lacked standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, and (2) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the claims raised by the intervening parties and by a nonparty. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in AC 46813 and consequently dismiss the appeal in AC 46890 as moot.")

• Posted in:
• Legal Malpractice & Attorney Discipline Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46504 - Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. State ("The plaintiff, Aldin Associates Limited Partnership, which owns and operates gas stations where underground storage tanks for petroleum have been used, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court denying its request for a writ of mandamus against the defendants, the state of Connecticut and Katie Dykes, the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (commissioner), directing them to request the state comptroller (comptroller) to pay the plaintiff's approved applications that were submitted pursuant to an underground storage tank petroleum clean-up program administered by the defendants. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied its request for a writ of mandamus and (2) failed to shift the burden of proof to the defendants. We disagree with both claims and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• AC46504 Concurrence in Part & Dissent in Part - Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. State

• Posted in:
• Environmental Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46591 - Tierinni v. Commissioner of Correction (Denial of petition; three evidentiary objections; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly sustained three evidentiary objections made by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction. We dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC46442 - State v. Ardizzone (Discharge from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board. “On appeal, the acquittee claims that (1) the court improperly found that, if he were discharged, he would present a danger to himself or others and (2) § 17a-593 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46988 - State v. Marcu (Misconduct with a motor vehicle; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that his conduct was committed with the mens rea of criminal negligence, and (2) the finding that he was criminally negligent was not supported by the trial court’s factual findings. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 29, for January 14, 2025 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 228 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 901 - 901
• Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 53 - 86)
• Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 230: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 86 - 187)
• Volume 230: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

SC20992 - Suprynowicz v. Tohan ("The plaintiffs, Kayla Suprynowicz and Reilly Flaherty, who were strangers for most of their lives, discovered through the genetic testing company 23andMe that they are half siblings. They allege in this action that their biological father is the defendant, Narendra B. Tohan, the reproductive endocrinologist who assisted the plaintiffs' parents in the parents' efforts to conceive children. The plaintiffs claim that, in treating their parents' infertility, the defendant utilized his own sperm rather than the sperm of the men they believed to be their fathers to impregnate their mothers, causing the plaintiffs physical and emotional harm. Although the plaintiffs' causes of action were labeled in the complaint as ordinary negligence claims, the defendant moved to strike them on the ground that they were noncognizable wrongful life claims. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to strike the plaintiffs' complaint.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiffs' negligence claims sounded in wrongful life rather than ordinary negligence. We conclude that the answer to that question is no and that our recent decision in Lynch v. State, 348 Conn. 478, 308 A.3d 1 (2024), controls the outcome. In Lynch, this court clarified that a claim arising from hospital staff's alleged negligence in using sperm infected with a virus in the course of a therapeutic donor insemination (TDI) procedure sounded in medical negligence, not wrongful life. See id., 484–87, 489–91, 505, 507. Similarly, the plaintiffs' claims in the present case are ordinary negligence claims rather than wrongful life claims because they arise from the defendant doctor's alleged negligence in using his own sperm to impregnate the plaintiffs' mothers during in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46422 - Walker v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for a mistrial during his criminal trial because an exhibit, specifically, an RT-60 form, was admitted into evidence and briefly published to the jury, and that exhibit evidenced that he had been incarcerated near the time of that trial. The petitioner asserts that publication of this evidence vitiated the presumption of innocence to which he was entitled, and a mistrial was the only way to remedy this violation of due process. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court denying the petition.")

AC46279 - Dearing v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition; alleged ineffective assistance of criminal trial counsel, appellate counsel, and prior habeas counsel; “The petitioner claims on appeal that the habeas court improperly failed to conclude that (1) his criminal trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing (a) to engage and present the testimony of a child abuse expert, (b) to obtain certain confidential records of the victim, and (c) to object to or have stricken certain testimony provided by the state’s expert on child forensic interviews; (2) appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in his direct criminal appeal by failing to challenge the trial court’s decision not to release the victim’s confidential records; and (3) prior habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise in his previous habeas action the foregoing claims of ineffective assistance directed at trial and appellate counsel. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC 46576 - Pasciolla v. Pasciolla ("In this postdissolution matter, Carollyn Mainolfi Pasciolla—the executrix of the estate of the defendant, James Pasciolla, and an intervenor in the underlying dissolution action (executrix)—appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing, for lack of standing, her second amended postjudgment motion to modify the lifetime alimony award awarded to the plaintiff, Christine Pasciolla. On appeal, the executrix contends that the court incorrectly concluded that she lacked standing to seek a postjudgment modification of alimony. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46498 - Roux v. Coffey ("The plaintiffs, Carri Roux and Stephen J. Roux, coadministrators of the estate of their son, Luke M. Roux (Roux), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., following the court's granting of the defendant's motion to strike all counts of the complaint brought against it. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly struck counts four and five of their complaint, which alleged negligence and public nuisance claims, respectively. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC20778 - State v. Johnson (“The jury rejected the defendant’s justification defenses and found him guilty of the crimes of murder, assault in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm, criminal possession of a firearm, and carrying a pistol without a permit. In this direct appeal, the defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to defeat his claims of self-defense and defense of others with respect to Wooten, and (2) the trial court improperly excluded evidence of Taylor’s violent character under § 4-4 (a) (2) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence. We affirm the judgment.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 28, for January 7, 2025 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 52)
• Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 230: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 53 - 86)
• Volume 230: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

SC 20830 - D. S. v. D. S. ("In this appeal, we consider whether an interest in an unfunded retirement benefit constitutes property pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-81, when that interest will never vest because it may be unilaterally revoked by a third party at any time. The plaintiff, D. S., appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court’s judgment of dissolution. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the interest of the defendant, D. S., in a potential stream of retirement payments (retirement payments) pursuant to the partnership agreement of her law firm (firm) was too speculative in nature to constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution under § 46b-81. The plaintiff further claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering an alimony award that was tied to her employment at the firm. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC 20830 Dissent - D. S. v. D. S.

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47684 - In re Mikhail M. ("The respondent father, Daniel 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, Mikhail M. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i). We find no merit to the respondent’s claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC47796 - In re Hyrum D. ("The petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, appeals from the judgments of the trial court revoking the commitment of the minor children, Hyrum D. and Antonio D., to the custody of the petitioner and returning the children to the custody of the respondent mother, Stephanie V. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court exceeded its statutory authority when it sua sponte revoked commitment of the minor children to the petitioner’s custody without providing all parties notice and a full evidentiary hearing. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46950 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Dance Right, LLC (“The plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), appeals from the order of the trial court remanding its administrative appeal from the decision of the commission’s human rights referee (referee). In the administrative proceedings before the commission, the referee found that the defendant Dance Right, LLC (Dance Right), discriminated against the complainant, Amber Frazier Manning, on the basis of her disability by failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation, but that the complainant failed to establish that she had been constructively discharged. In the commission’s administrative appeal, the trial court, following oral argument, issued an order (remand order) in which it determined that the referee’s findings with respect to the reasonable accommodation claim conflicted with the finding that Dance Right did not constructively discharge the complainant and remanded the matter to the referee to issue an amended opinion addressing that conflict. On appeal, the commission claims that the trial court erred by (1) remanding the matter to the referee without sustaining the appeal, and (2) failing to conclude that Dance Right’s failure to provide the complainant with a reasonable accommodation established, as a matter of law, that the complainant was constructively discharged. We agree that the trial court’s remand order was improper, but conclude that substantial evidence supported the referee’s finding that the complainant was not constructively discharged. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to dismiss the commission’s appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46522 - State v. Artis (“On appeal, the defendant claims that, before he entered his plea on the manslaughter charge, the court was required, in accordance with Practice Book § 39- 19, to inform him that, by statute, an individual convicted of manslaughter in the first degree is disqualified from earning any risk reduction credits toward a reduction of his sentence but failed to do so. He avers that he ‘was not aware . . . when he pleaded guilty or at sentencing . . . that he was statutorily prohibited from being eligible to earn the good time credits because of the manslaughter charge’ and that, consequently, his ‘sentence is akin to being a mandatory minimum,’ and his plea was not knowingly or voluntarily made. As a remedy for this, he requests that we ‘provide [him] with a right to earn good time credit on his manslaughter conviction’ in accordance with the trial court’s suggestion at his sentencing hearing that he ‘may accumulate good time credits,’ notwithstanding its inaccuracy.

------

It is the role of the General Assembly to legislate and the role of the judiciary to adjudicate. For this court to accede to the defendant’s request would amount to an invasion of the General Assembly’s domain in violation of principles of separation of powers among the various branches of government. This we will not do. Stated simply, this court cannot provide the defendant with the only relief he requests and, therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment on that basis.”)

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

AC46950 - Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Dance Right, LLC ("The plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), appeals from the order of the trial court remanding its administrative appeal from the decision of the commission's human rights referee (referee). In the administrative proceedings before the commission, the referee found that the defendant Dance Right, LLC (Dance Right), discriminated against the complainant, Amber Frazier Manning, on the basis of her disability by failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation, but that the complainant failed to establish that she had been constructively discharged. In the commission's administrative appeal, the trial court, following oral argument, issued an order (remand order) in which it determined that the referee's findings with respect to the reasonable accommodation claim conflicted with the finding that Dance Right did not constructively discharge the complainant and remanded the matter to the referee to issue an amended opinion addressing that conflict. On appeal, the commission claims that the trial court erred by (1) remanding the matter to the referee without sustaining the appeal, and (2) failing to conclude that Dance Right's failure to provide the complainant with a reasonable accommodation established, as a matter of law, that the complainant was constructively discharged. We agree that the trial court's remand order was improper, but conclude that substantial evidence supported the referee's finding that the complainant was not constructively discharged. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to dismiss the commission's appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions