The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 51, for June 17, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 352: Connecticut Reports (Pages 161 - 183)
• Volume 352: Orders (Pages 904 - 907)
• Volume 352: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 233: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 234 - 296)
• Volume 233: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 233: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

SC21074 - Johnson v. Superior Court ("In this writ of error, the plaintiff in error, Gregory Johnson (plaintiff), challenges his conviction of three counts of criminal contempt for conduct he engaged in during his habeas trial. The plaintiff claims that the trial court deprived him of his right to due process under the federal constitution by failing to postpone the summary criminal contempt proceeding to a later date and by failing to order that the hearing on contempt be held before a different judge. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the writ of error.")

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

Friday, June 13

• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Monday, June 16

• Danbury Law Library is closed from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Tuesday, June 17

• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, June 18

• Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• New Haven Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, June 19

• All Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed for the holiday.

Friday, June 20

• New Britain Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.
• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Bridgeport Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC46971 - Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction (Interlocutory appeal pursuant to § 52-470; untimely filing of the petition; “On appeal, the petitioner raises several claims related to the habeas court’s partial dismissal of his petition. We do not reach the merits of these claims because the decision from which the petitioner appeals is not an appealable final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC47248 - J. E. v. J. N. ("In this custody action, the self-represented defendant, J. N., appeals following the trial court’s judgment of custody and orders of visitation with respect to the parties’ minor children. On appeal, the defendant claims, inter alia, that the court improperly required the defendant to proceed with the underlying custody trial in the absence of his attorney. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46936 - State v. Walker (Carrying a pistol without a permit; persistent felony offender; criminal possession of a pistol; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court violated his constitutional rights (1) to be present at all critical stages of his prosecution when it determined that he waived that right and tried and sentenced him in absentia, and (2) to counsel of his choice when it denied his motion for a continuance to retain substitute counsel. We disagree with the defendant’s claim that his constitutional right to counsel was violated. We agree, however, that the trial court improperly determined that he had waived his right to be present at trial and sentencing as to the charge of being a persistent felony offender and therefore reverse the judgment as to that charge only and remand the case for resentencing on the remaining two convictions.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 50, for June 10, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 352: Connecticut Reports (Pages 81 - 160)
• Volume 352: Orders (Pages 901 - 904)
• Volume 352: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 233: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 78 - 233)
• Volume 233: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 233: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

AC48030 - In re Zakari W. ("The respondent mother, Tali B., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights as to her minor child, Zakari W. (Zakari). The respondent claims that the court erred in concluding that she failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

Friday, June 6

• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Monday, June 9

• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Tuesday, June 10

• Middletown Law Library is closed from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library is closed from 1:45 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, June 11

• New Britain Law Library opens at 12:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, June 12

• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 11:30 a.m.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 11:30 a.m.
• Hartford Law Library closes at 12:15 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• New London Law Library closes at 11:15 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library closes at 11:00 a.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 11:45 a.m.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.

Friday, June 13

• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC47452 - Birch Hill Recovery Center, LLC v. High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. (“On appeal, the plaintiff does not argue that the court erred in its determination that the defendant met its initial burden under the first prong of § 52-196a (e) (3). See footnote 2 of this opinion. Instead, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by dismissing the action because it established that there is probable cause that it will prevail on its claims against the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that (1) the defendant’s efforts to challenge the facility in court and administrative proceedings constituted ‘‘sham’’ litigation that is not protected by the first amendment to the federal constitution or the state constitution, (2) the absolute litigation privilege does not bar the plaintiff’s claims, and (3) the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant’s conduct amounted to tortious interference with business relations. We disagree with the plaintiff’s claim that it established probable cause that it will prevail on its claim that the defendant’s challenges to the facility constituted sham litigation. We, therefore, conclude that the court did not err in its determination that the defendant’s conduct was protected by the first amendment. Because that conclusion is sufficient to uphold the dismissal of the complaint, we need not address the plaintiff’s other challenges to the judgment of dismissal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC47244 - Beger v. Bristol (Personal injury; municipal highway defect statute § 13a-149; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the first count of her complaint, which asserted a claim against the city under General Statutes § 13a-149, also known as the municipal highway defect statute. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46825- Greenwich Retail, LLC. v. Greenwich (" The principal issue in this municipal tax appeal is whether the requirement of General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 12-63c (a) that a municipal tax assessor "provide" an owner of real property that generates rental income with a form on which to submit income and expense information is satisfied when that form is timely mailed to, but not actually received by, the property owner and/or its agent. The plaintiff, Greenwich Retail, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the town of Greenwich, challenging a municipal tax assessment of a penalty pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-117a and 12-119. On appeal, the plaintiff first claims that the court incorrectly determined that the word "provided" in § 12-63c (a) does not require that an income and expense form actually be received by the property owner and/or its agent. The plaintiff argues, to the extent that the word "provided" is ambiguous, the court should have strictly construed the statute in its favor. The plaintiff also claims that the trial court erred in concluding that the mailing of the form to the plaintiff by the defendant's assessor (assessor) to its last known address satisfied § 12-63c (a). We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court."

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

AC47029 - Fischer v. M&T Bank, N.A. (“The plaintiff, Alan Fischer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action for, inter alia, breach of contract against the defendants, M&T Bank, N.A. (M&T Bank), formerly known as People’s United Bank, N.A. (People’s United), and two former bank employees, Kenneth Nuzzolo and Virgilio Lopez, Jr. On appeal, the plaintiff raises a number of claims related to the court’s dismissal of his action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.”)

AC46784 - Waterbury v. Watertown (“The defendant, the town of Watertown, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiff, the city of Waterbury. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that, in the absence of a contractual agreement, General Statutes §§ 7-2391 and 7-2552 authorize the plaintiff to set the rates it charges properties located in the defendant municipality for the continued use of its water and sewer services, (2) concluded that those statutes impliedly authorize the plaintiff to sue the defendant to collect unpaid water and sewer service charges incurred by those properties, and (3) found the plaintiff’s water and sewer service rates to be reasonable and equitable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20766 - State v. Williams (Manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm; criminal possession of a firearm; criminal possession of ammunition; carrying a pistol without a permit in connection with a shooting incident; double jeopardy; “The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in declining to give the jury an instruction on the defense of self-defense with respect to the charge of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm when a third party was the victim of the shooting. The defendant also claims that his conviction of both criminal possession of a firearm and criminal possession of ammunition violates double jeopardy. We agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in declining to provide the jury with a self-defense instruction for the charge of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and that this error was harmful. Therefore, we reverse the defendant’s conviction of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial on that count. We also agree with the defendant that his conviction of criminal possession of a firearm and criminal possession of ammunition violates double jeopardy. Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of ammunition.”)

• Concurrence & Dissent
  

AC47220 - State v. Emmanuel C. (One count of risk of injury to a child; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, (2) the trial court improperly denied his renewed motions for a bill of particulars, (3) the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial based on his allegation that the state failed to disclose certain impeachment evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), (4) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain photographs into evidence, and (5) the trial court improperly denied his request for judicial recusal. We dismiss as moot the defendant’s claim as to the denial of his renewed motions for a bill of particulars. With respect to the defendant’s remaining claims, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46610 - State v. Rosa (Two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree; two counts of risk of injury to a child; count of risk of injury to a child; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably find that he had contact with the ‘buttock area’ of the victim, T, as alleged in the information with respect to one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree and one count of risk of injury to a child under § 53-21 (a) (2); (2) the trial court improperly admitted portions of T’s video-recorded forensic interview under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the rule against hearsay; and (3) the trial court improperly limited the disclosure of certain of T’s confidential medical and mental health records following an in camera review of those records. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

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

SC20988 - Simpson v. Simpson ("This certified appeal requires us to construe provisions in a separation agreement governing obligations to pay additional child support and alimony on the basis of the payor spouse’s income attributable to bonuses and profit sharing. Upon our grant of her petition for certification, the plaintiff, Janel Simpson, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing in part the decision of the trial court, which had issued certain remedial orders in connection with the obligation of the defendant, Robert R. Simpson, to pay additional child support and alimony under the separation agreement that was incorporated into the judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. Simpson v. Simpson, 222 Conn. App. 466, 470, 498, 306 A.3d 477 (2023). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the separation agreement unambiguously relieved the defendant from the obligation to pay additional child support and alimony after his gross income, including his base draw, bonuses, and profit sharing, exceeded $700,000. We conclude that the relevant provisions of the separation agreement are ambiguous on this point and that a remand to the trial court is required for consideration of extrinsic evidence as to the parties’ intent. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 49, for June 3, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 352: Connecticut Reports (Pages 54 - 81)
• Volume 352: Orders (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 352: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 232: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 829 - 887)
• Volume 232: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 906)
• Volume 232: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 233: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 78)
• Volume 233: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

Monday, June 2

• Waterbury Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.

Tuesday, June 3

• Torrington Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, June 4

• Waterbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m., closes from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, June 5

• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

Friday, June 6

• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC46668 - Hadji v. Snow (“In this action for breach of contract, the defendants Patrick T. Snow, a real estate developer, and six limited liability companies owned and/or managed by Snow (defendant companies) appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Andreas S. Hadji, on count one of this action alleging breach of a written agreement, dated August 30, 2018 (agreement), that was entered into between the plaintiff and Snow, individually and on behalf of the defendant companies, and with respect to six special defenses and a counterclaim filed by the defendants. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) rejected their second special defense, in which they alleged, inter alia, that Snow did not have apparent authority to enter into the agreement on behalf of the defendant Finishers Court, LLC (Finishers Court), (2) determined that there was proper consideration to support the agreement as to each of the defendant companies, (3) rejected their contention that the interest charged under the agreement was unconscionable, (4) determined that the written agreement constituted the entire agreement between the parties, and (5) calculated damages by double counting the base amount of damages. We agree with the defendants’ last claim only and reverse the judgment in part.)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46982 - State v. Griffin (Manslaughter in the first degree; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury that ‘self-defense does not encompass a preemptive strike’ and (2) the state improperly infringed upon his constitutional right to remain silent when, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), it impermissibly commented on his post-Miranda silence during rebuttal closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46830 - State v. Orlando F. (Attempt to commit robbery in first degree; robbery in the first degree; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) admitted into evidence testimony by a lay witness who identified him from a surveillance video recording during trial and (2) committed plain error by improperly instructing the jury about that witness’ identification. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

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

AC47144 - Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and that the court improperly concluded that his second habeas counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to raise a claim that his trial counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding the state’s plea offers. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal and, therefore, dismiss this appeal.”)

AC46876 - Walsh v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) dismissed count one of his petition on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and (2) concluded that he failed to establish good cause for his late filed petition. With respect to both claims, we conclude that the judgment of the habeas court must be reversed and the case remanded for a new good cause hearing.”)

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