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

Connecticut Law Journal - April 9, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5822

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 41, for April 9, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 750 - 795)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 549 - 668)
  • Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Carey, Sean

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5821

AC45627 - Bouchard v. Wheeler (“This case concerns the proper application of General Statutes § 38a-336, commonly known as the underinsured motorist statute. See Tannone v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., 329 Conn. 665, 676, 189 A.3d 99 (2018). The defendant Safeco Insurance Company appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in accordance with the stipulation that it entered into with the plaintiffs Caitlyn Bouchard, Kayla Bouchard and Madalyn Bouchard. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the automobile in question constituted an underinsured motor vehicle, as that term is used in § 38a-336. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5818

AC45875 - Krasko v. Konkos ("The defendants Robert Konkos and Chelsea Konkos (collectively, Konkos defendants); 105 Honeysuckle Trust, dated March 9, 2021, Owned Wealth, LLC, as trustee; and Owned Wealth, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting a motion brought by the plaintiffs, Robert J. Krasko and Francis L. O'Neill, to enforce a settlement agreement allegedly entered into between the parties at a pretrial conference. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion to enforce in the absence of a clear and unambiguous agreement. We reverse the judgment of the court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5819

SC20720 - State v. Diaz (“In this direct appeal, the defendant, Gonzalo Diaz, raises two unpreserved claims challenging his conviction of felony murder, burglary in the first degree, conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a firearm. First, he claims that the trial court committed plain error when it instructed the jury that it may consider his interest in the outcome of its verdict when assessing the credibility of his trial testimony, contrary to our statement in State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604, 631, 65 A.3d 503 (2013), that such an instruction should not be given. Second, he claims that the prosecutor made improper remarks during cross-examination and rebuttal argument, in violation of his due process right to a fair trial. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5817

AC45996 - Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Scroggin ("The defendant, Daniel J. Scroggin, who is also known as Daniel F. Scroggin or Daniel Scroggin, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court, for the third time, in favor of the substitute plaintiff, AJX Mortgage Trust I, a Delaware Trust, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Trustee. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) erred in granting summary judgment as to liability in that it improperly relied on an affidavit of a loan officer employed by the plaintiff in determining that the original plaintiff, Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase), was the holder of the note in this case at the time the action was commenced and failed to draw an adverse inference from the plaintiff's refusal to produce witnesses and documents requested by the defendant, and (2) abused its discretion when it implicitly granted the plaintiff's motion for a protective order, which, he alleges, 'resulted in a complete denial of discovery and a denial of [his] ability to rebut the plaintiff's claims.' We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45340 - Ferreira v. Ward (Foreclosure of judgment lien; "The defendant, Charles W. Ward, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in this action to foreclose a judgment lien brought by the plaintiff, Daniel Ferreira. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale without first holding an evidentiary hearing, as requested, to determine whether the homestead exemption of $250,000 set forth in General Statutes § 52-352b (21) applied. We reverse the judgment of the court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - April 2, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5815

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 40, for April 2, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 726 - 750)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 429 - 549)
  • Volume 224: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 904)
  • Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5814

SC20759 - Canner v. Governors Ridge Assn., Inc. (“The plaintiffs, Glen A. Canner, the executor of the estate of Charles A. Canner, and Louis D. Puteri, brought separate actions against a condominium association, the named defendant in each case, Governors Ridge Association, Inc., alleging that the foundations supporting their respective units were sinking as a result of improper design. In this consolidated appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the trial court’s judgments in favor of the defendant on the ground that the three year tort statute of limitations; see General Statutes § 52-577; barred pursuit of an alleged cause of action under the Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA), General Statutes § 47-200 et seq. We conclude that some, but not all, of the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant are time barred and, accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5813

AC45057 - Glory Chapel International Cathedral v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Glory Chapel International Cathedral (Glory Chapel), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (Philadelphia Indemnity), striking all counts of Glory Chapel's complaint against Philadelphia Indemnity. On appeal, Glory Chapel claims that (1) the court erred in striking its original complaint on the basis of misjoinder, (2) even if the claims in its original complaint were properly stricken, the court erred by rejecting the substitute complaint that it filed pursuant to Practice Book § 10-44, and (3) the court erred by sustaining Philadelphia Indemnity's objection to an offer of compromise that Glory Chapel filed during the pendency of this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Glory Chapel on its second claim that the trial court improperly rejected its substitute complaint, but we disagree with it on its other claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45600 - Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co. ("The issue at the core of this appeal is, in the context of a dispute regarding insurance coverage for business losses suffered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, whether the operative complaint contained sufficient allegations to withstand a motion to strike pursuant to Practice Book § 10-39. The plaintiff, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Factory Mutual Insurance Company, following the partial granting of its motion to strike and the subsequent withdrawal of the remaining claims set forth in the plaintiff's operative complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly concluded that a policy exclusion for contamination caused by a virus applied to the majority of its claims for coverage and (2) our Supreme Court's decisions in Connecticut Dermatology Group, PC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 346 Conn. 33, 288 A.3d 187 (2023) (CT Dermatology), and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Moda, LLC, 346 Conn. 64, 288 A.3d 206 (2023) (Moda), both of which were released subsequent to the trial court's decision in the present case, do not provide an alternative basis to affirm the trial court's granting of the motion to strike. We disagree with both of the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC45433 - Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc., appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Arbella Protection Insurance Company. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that, pursuant to a commercial general liability policy, the defendant had no duty to defend the plaintiff against a counterclaim filed by a third party in an action arising out of a contract for the construction of a modular home. We disagree and, accordingly, 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=5811

AC46906 - State v. Roberts (Carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of § 29-35 (a); “The defendant claims that his conviction for this offense should be vacated ‘[i]n light of’ the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022). Specifically, he argues that the firearm permitting laws in Connecticut place on him an unconstitutional burden that violates his right to bear arms under the second amendment to the United States constitution and subject him to disparate treatment as a non-Connecticut resident (nonresident), in violation of the privileges and immunities clause set forth in article four, § 2, clause 1 of the United States constitution.”)


Connecticut Law Journal - March 26, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5810

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 39, for March 26, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 669 - 726)
  • Volume 348: Orders (Pages 958 - 959)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 345 - 428)
  • Volume 224: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 903)
  • Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5809

SC20575 - State v. Sayles (“On appeal, the defendant raises numerous constitutional challenges to the decision of the Appellate Court upholding the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence of his cell phone and its stored data. We, however, need not address the merits of the defendant’s various constitutional claims because we conclude that any error in the admission of the contents of the defendant’s cell phone was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5805

AC46942 - Black Rock Gardens, LLC v. Berry ("The defendant, Henry Berry, appeals from the trial court's denial of a special motion to dismiss that he filed pursuant to Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute, General Statutes § 52-196a, in a summary process action brought against him by the plaintiff, Black Rock Gardens, LLC. Before this court is the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's appeal in which the plaintiff claims that the defendant has not appealed from a final judgment. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the defendant has failed to assert a colorable claim to the protections afforded by the anti-SLAPP statute and, consequently, pursuant to Smith v. Supple, 346 Conn. 928, 952, 293 A.3d 851 (2023), this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the plaintiff and dismiss the defendant's appeal.")

AC45702 - 111 Clearview Drive, LLC v. Patrick ("In this summary process action, the defendants Lois Patrick, Justin Patrick, and Julian Patrick appeal from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, 111 Clearview Drive, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion in limine, which precluded them from presenting certain evidence to support their claim that Lois was an omitted party in the related foreclosure action of Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd. v. Roundtree, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-16-6059553-S (Benchmark action and/or Benchmark judgment), and thus maintained a legitimate and legally viable interest in the property in question. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5806

AC45450 - Patrick v. 111 Clearview Drive, LLC (Quiet title; "This appeal arises from the dismissal of a quiet title action. The plaintiff, Lois Patrick, initiated the action against the defendant 111 Clearview Drive, LLC, alleging that she has an interest in certain real property located in Bridgeport, as to which the defendant holds title. After a hearing on the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's amended complaint, the trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after determining, sua sponte, that the plaintiff was making an improper collateral attack on a prior judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the quiet title action because the plaintiff was collaterally attacking an underlying foreclosure action, and (2) failed to adjudicate whether the plaintiff may be considered an omitted party under General Statutes § 49-30. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Legal Malpractice Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5808

AC45261 - McDonnell v. Roberts ("In this action, the plaintiff, Patricia A. McDonnell, appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion to open and set aside the judgment of nonsuit rendered in favor of the defendants, Norman A. Roberts II, the Law Offices of Norman A. Roberts, LLC, and GraberRoberts, LLC. The plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to open and set aside the judgment of nonsuit on the grounds that the court erred in finding that she failed to show that a good cause of action existed at the time of the judgment of nonsuit and that she was prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause from prosecuting the action. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5807

AC46164 - Rios v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent first claims that the court improperly concluded that the amended administrative directive at issue was subject to ex post facto scrutiny because it constitutes a law within the meaning of that clause. The respondent also argues, in the alternative, that, even if the amended administrative directive were subject to scrutiny under the ex post facto clause because it constitutes a law within the meaning of that clause, the court nonetheless improperly concluded that the application of the amended administrative directive to the petitioner violated the ex post facto clause prohibition. We agree with the respondent’s first argument and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5804

AC 46679 - In re Josyah L.-T. ("The respondent, Celina T., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Josyah L.-T. (Josyah). The respondent, who is self-represented in this appeal, asserts that this court should recognize her right to be the legal guardian of Josyah because she would be a better caregiver to him than the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families. Because the respondent has failed to identify any cognizable claim of error in relation to the court’s decision terminating her parental rights as to Josyah, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - March 19, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5803

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 38, for March 19, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 648 - 669)
  • Volume 348: Orders (Pages 955 - 957)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 237 - 344)
  • Volume 224: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 903)
  • Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5801

AC46091 - Bartolotta v. Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc. (“The plaintiff, Alyssa Bartolotta, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc., in this employment discrimination action. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all four counts of her complaint. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46927 - Torrington v. Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 442 (“This appeal presents a matter of first impression: whether a judgment of the Superior Court vacating an arbitration award and remanding the matter for a new arbitration hearing is a final judgment for purposes of an appeal pursuant to applicable statutes governing arbitration proceedings and municipal collective bargaining. We conclude that the defendants, Gerald Peters (Peters) and Council 4, AFSCME, AFLCIO, Local 442 (union), have appealed from a final judgment in this case and, accordingly, deny the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the city of Torrington (city).”)


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5800

AC45807 - Rodriguez v. Hartford ("The plaintiff, Carmen Rodriguez, as parent and next friend of her minor son, Christopher Rodriguez (Christopher), appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, the city of Hartford (city) and Heather Dionne, the city forester, in this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Christopher when a tree fell on him while he was playing at a basketball court located in a city park. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by (1) denying her requests to amend her complaint and (2) concluding that her complaint did not set forth a claim of public nuisance and that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether her claims against the defendants were barred by governmental immunity. We conclude that the court properly rendered summary judgment as to the plaintiff's negligence claims but that the court erred in denying one of the plaintiff's requests to amend her complaint. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5799

AC45982 - Delgado v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his criminal trial counsel, Attorney Kimberly Graham, and his appellate counsel, Attorney Theresa M. Dalton, did not render ineffective assistance during the criminal proceedings underlying his conviction or in the direct appeal from his conviction, respectively, a conclusion that necessarily defeated the petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel directed at his second habeas counsel, Attorney Laljeebhai R. Patel. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC46079 - Rapp v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in concluding that he failed to establish good cause for his untimely petition. Specifically, the petitioner argues that his prior habeas counsel’s failure to advise him of the statutory deadline for filing a new petition following the withdrawal of his then pending petition constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, which constituted good cause for the delay in filing. In light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333, 304 A.3d 431 (2023), we conclude that the judgment of the habeas court must be reversed, and we remand the case for a new good cause hearing.”)