AC47991 - Zheng v. Xia ("The self-represented defendant, Feifei Xia, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her postjudgment motion for a modification of the child support obligation of the self-represented plaintiff, Zhe Zheng, in which the defendant sought an order requiring the plaintiff to pay for the private school tuition and fees of the parties' minor son (child).On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly failed (1) to find the existence of a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification, (2) "to give proper weight to the parties' shared history of prioritizing elite, tuition based education," (3) to find the plaintiff in violation of his legal obligation to meet with a parenting coordinator to resolve disputes regarding educational matters pertaining to the child, and (4) to consider the regular school field trip costs for the child. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47230 - State v. Sidiropoulos (“The defendant, Haralambos Sidiropoulos, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a trial to the court, of one count of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §53a-181 (a) (5).1 The defendant’s conviction stems from an angry confrontation he had with a dental assistant while at a dental office. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the state failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to the breach of the peace charge because his speech was protected under (a) the first amendment to the United States constitution and (b) article first, §§4, 5 and 14, of the Connecticut constitution, and (2) §53a181 (a) (5) is unconstitutionally vague (a) on its face and (b) as applied to the facts of the present case. We affirm the judgment of conviction.”)

AC48118 - State v. Lopez (“The defendant, Jose Antonio Lopez, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §53a-59 (a) (1),1 two counts of assault of public safety personnel in violation of General Statutes §53a-167c (a) (1),2 and one count of evasion of responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes §14-224 (b) (1).3 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly violated his right to self-representation under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution. We disagree and affirm the judgments of the court.”)

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

Thursday, January 15

• Bridgeport Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.
• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Friday, January 16

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 11:00 a.m.
• New London Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.

Monday, January 19

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

Tuesday, January 20

• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Wednesday, January 21

• Stamford Law Library opens at 12:00 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library closes from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC21025 - State v. Carlos G. (“In two cases, the state charged the defendant, Carlos G., with committing sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §53a-70 (a) (2) in five separate counts. Each count was premised on multiple, separate instances of sexual assault against a minor victim. The question before us on appeal is, when the state has charged a defendant in a single count of an information with violating a single statute in multiple, separate instances—a type of duplicitous charge—must a trial court not only give the jury a specific unanimity instruction, but also, sua sponte, submit special interrogatories to the jury regarding each instance in order to protect the defendant’s federal constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict? The answer to that question is no.

We already have determined that, in a case in which a criminal defendant is charged in a single count with violating a statute in multiple instances, that defendant’s constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict is protected by a specific unanimity instruction, explaining to the jurors that they all must unanimously agree on a specific instance in order to find the defendant guilty. See State v. Douglas C., 345 Conn. 421, 445–46, 285 A.3d 1067 (2022). Here, the defendant agrees that the trial court gave the jury a proper specific unanimity instruction with respect to each count of first degree sexual assault. We conclude that, in doing so, the court sufficiently protected the defendant’s federal constitutional right to a unanimous verdict.”)

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

The 2026 edition of our research guide on Torts of Minors in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 29, for January 13, 2026 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 354: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 20)
• Volume 354: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 237: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 115 - 241)
• Volume 237: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
• Volume 237: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
• Title page for Connecticut Reports

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

SC20989 - State v. Christon M. (One count each of assault in the first degree by means of the discharge of a firearm, home invasion, criminal possession of a firearm and threatening in the second degree, and two counts of risk of injury to a child; “The defendant claims that the trial court violated his right under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him by instructing the jury about a subdivision of the home invasion statute under which he was not charged. He further claims that his convictions of home invasion and first degree assault violate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution. We affirm the judgment of conviction.”)

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

AC46499 - Hope v. Willimantic Partners, LLC ("In this premises liability action, the defendant Willimantic Partners, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiffs, Richard Hope and his daughter, Deborah Oliver, after they sustained injuries following a fall on property owned by the defendant and leased to Liberty Bank. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was insufficient evidence that a defect existed where Hope fell and that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of a specific defect on the premises, (2) admitted Hope's statements under the dead man's statute, General Statutes § 52-172, without limitation at trial despite the fact that Oliver is a living party, (3) denied its motion to set aside the verdict despite that the jury acted improperly by disregarding the law and the court's instructions on comparative negligence, and (4) declined to charge the jury on spoliation of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC47191 - Jan G. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel, Attorney Michael Isko, (1) violated the petitioner’s sixth amendment right to autonomy to decide the fundamental objectives of his defense, as established in McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L. Ed. 2d 821 (2018), and (2) rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by pursuing a defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED), rather than the petitioner’s preferred defense of demonic possession or a lack of capacity due to mental disease or defect. We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC47274 - Anwar S. v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly dismissed his claim in count three of the amended petition that he was deprived of his constitutional right to confrontation on the ground of res judicata. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal and, therefore, dismiss this appeal.”)

AC46765 - Bobe v. Commissioner of Correction (On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) abused its discretion and denied him his 'basic constitutional right to present witnesses at trial,' in violation of due process of law, when it denied his motion for a continuance of the habeas trial, and (3) improperly concluded that he had failed to prove ineffective assistance of his criminal trial counsel. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC47335 - State v. Velazquez ("Following a conditional plea of nolo contendere, entered pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, the defendant, Stanley Velazquez, appeals from the judgment of conviction of possession with intent to sell more than one ounce of heroin in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (a) (1) (A) (i), possession with intent to sell more than one-half ounce of cocaine in violation of § 21a-278 (a) (1) (A) (ii), and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 53a-217 (a) (1). The defendant entered his conditional plea after the court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment in which he resided. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress because the search warrant application and affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the search of his apartment and the seizure of property therein. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

The 2025 edition of our research guide on Foreign Matrimonial, Custody and Support Judgments in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

Thursday, January 8

• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

Friday, January 9

• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Monday, January 12

• Rockville Law Library is closed from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, January 13

• Hartford Law Library opens at 12:30 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library is closed from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
• New London Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• Stamford Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.

Wednesday, January 14

• Danbury Law Library is closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
• New Britain Law Library is closed from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.

Thursday, January 15

• Bridgeport Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.
• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Friday, January 16

• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 11:00 a.m.
• New London Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 28, for January 6, 2026 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 353: Connecticut Reports (Pages 845 - 875)
• Volume 353: Orders (Pages 938 - 941)
• Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 237: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 45 - 114)
• Volume 237: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 237: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC 21062 - Orlando v. Liburd (“ The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed as unripe the unjust enrichment claim asserted by the plaintiff, Rocco Orlando, against his automobile insurer, the third-party defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide). The unjust enrichment claim is based on Nationwide’s allegedly wrongful enforcement of its subrogation rights against the defendant, Ernest Liburd, prior to the adjudication of the plaintiff’s negligence action against Liburd. The trial court concluded, and the Appellate Court agreed, that the plaintiff’s claim was not ripe for adjudication under the make whole doctrine until the plaintiff first obtained a judgment against Liburd.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that his claim is ripe for adjudication because Nationwide’s premature subrogation constituted a cognizable legal injury, despite any uncertainty as to the amount of his damages. In addition to arguing that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the plaintiff’s claim is not ripe, Nationwide claims, as an alternative ground for affirming the Appellate Court’s judgment, that the plaintiff also lacks standing to assert it. We agree with the plaintiff that the matter is ripe for adjudication and conclude that he has standing to pursue the claim. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

The 2025 edition of our research guide on Termination of Parental Rights in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

AC48174 - Alterio v. Spak ("The plaintiff, Matthew Alterio, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint against the defendant, Wendy Spak, pursuant to Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute, General Statutes § 52-196a. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant had met her initial showing, pursuant to § 52-196a (e) (3), that the plaintiff's complaint was based on the defendant's exercise of her right to petition the government on a matter of public concern, and (2) dismissed his claims of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant counters, inter alia, that the plaintiff failed to adequately brief his claims on appeal. We agree with the defendant that the plaintiff's claims are inadequately briefed, and, thus, we decline to review them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC47603 - State v. Stepherson ("The defendant, Bakari Stepherson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (3). The defendant claims that the evidence, even when construed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, was insufficient for the jury reasonably to find that the victim, Issam Madineh, had suffered a serious physical injury. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of conviction.")

AC48991 - State v. Kenneth G. ("The defendant, Kenneth G., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of child pornography in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 53a-196d (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of possession of child pornography. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

Friday, January 2

• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New Haven Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.

Monday, January 5

• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, January 6

• Danbury Law Library closes at 10:15 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, January 7

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

Thursday, January 8

• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

Friday, January 9

• Stamford Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC48053 - Villwell Builders I, LLC v. Pereira (“The present appeal arises out of four separate actions commenced by the plaintiff home improvement contractor, Villwell Builders I, LLC, against the defendant condominium owners, Linda Biagioni, Andrew Biagioni, Phil Pereira, Gina Pereira, Karrie Sadler and Julia Wexler. The four cases were consolidated for trial. The plaintiff appeals from the judgments rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants on their respective counterclaims for breach of contract and negligence. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) found that the plaintiff materially breached the contracts by and between the plaintiff and the respective defendants regarding certain construction work to be completed on their condominiums; (2) calculated damages on the breach of contract counterclaims; and (3) found that the plaintiff breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded damages on the claim when no such claim was pleaded. We conclude that, although the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff breached the contracts was not clearly erroneous, it improperly calculated damages for the breach of contract counterclaims. We therefore reverse the judgments of the trial court as to the awards of damages, vacate those awards, and remand the cases with direction to award nominal damages to the defendants on their breach of contract counterclaims.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut General Assembly has posted a list of new laws effective on January 1, 2026. Each entry includes links to the full text of the public act, the plain English summary from the Office of Legislative Research, and the bill status page.

The webpage states that "New Legislation Effective Dates are typically January 1, July 1, and October 1 and are included in these lists. Laws may also be effective from passage or based on other criteria or dates. For atypical scenarios, you may use our Advanced Document Search."

The Connecticut General Assembly also provides an archive of legislation by effective date going back to October 2007.

The Office of Legislative Research (OLR) makes available its Major Public Acts report for the 2025 legislative session as well.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• New Legislation