AC45775 - C. W. v. Warzecha ("The defendant, Keith J. Warzecha, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, C. W., on her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by asking him questions during the trial, sua sponte, that went beyond the scope of what was permissible, (2) the evidence presented at trial did not support a finding of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (3) 'this court [should] grant [his] motion to dismiss when the trial court did not act on it.' We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46339 - Harvin v. Yale New Haven Health Services Corp. ("In this civil action, the plaintiff, Marcus T. Harvin, a former inmate, asserts claims of, inter alia, negligence per se and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the defendant Lawrence + Memorial Hospital on the basis of its allegedly unlawful disclosure of his confidential health information during his criminal prosecution. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant unlawfully disclosed his confidential health information in two ways. First, he alleges that the defendant unlawfully provided certain unspecified confidential health records, including a psychiatric evaluation, to members of the Office of the Chief State's Attorney. Second, he alleges that two of the defendant's agents disclosed confidential health information during their testimony at his criminal trial. The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the theory that the defendant is entitled to absolute immunity from suit under the litigation privilege because any and all disclosures of the plaintiff's confidential health information, whether by itself or its agents, occurred in the course of the criminal litigation and in response to a valid subpoena and court order. The defendant specifically claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis on which to determine if the litigation privilege applied under the circumstances of this case.

At oral argument before this court, the plaintiff's attorney conceded, and we agree, that the litigation privilege does bar those portions of the underlying action premised on the testimony provided by the defendant's agents at the plaintiff's criminal trial. We disagree, however, that the defendant demonstrated on this record that it is entitled to litigation privilege with respect to the allegations of unlawful disclosure of confidential health information to members of the Office of the Chief State's Attorney. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to grant the motion to dismiss to the extent that the remaining counts are premised on the testimony given by the defendant's agents at the plaintiff's criminal trial.")

AC46348 - Rubin v. Brodie ("The issues before this court are whether an application to confirm an arbitration award filed in a pending civil action survives the dismissal of the civil action and, if so, whether an appeal from the judgment dismissing the civil action operates to automatically stay proceedings on the application to confirm the arbitration award. We reject the argument that the application to confirm did not survive the dismissal of the complaint and conclude that this appeal does not automatically stay proceedings before the Superior Court on the pending application to confirm an arbitration award filed by the named defendant, Barnett Brodie. Accordingly, we grant the motion for review filed by Brodie and other defendants and grant the relief requested in accordance with this court's February 14, 2024 order.")