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.
AC46292 - LendingHome Funding Corp. v. REI Holdings, LLC ("The defendant Homeowners Finance Co. appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, LendingHome Funding Corporation, and denying its motion to reconsider. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly concluded, on the basis that title to the property at issue had become absolute in the plaintiff, that the defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15 because, according to the defendant, an appellate stay was in effect when the law days passed, thereby rendering them ineffective, and (2) failed to consider that, even if absolute title had vested in the plaintiff, it had inherent, continuing jurisdiction to open the judgment of strict foreclosure under the circumstances of the present action. We conclude that (1) no appellate stay was in effect when the law days passed, such that the law days were legally effective and, without redemption, absolute title to the property vested in the plaintiff, thereby precluding the defendant from obtaining relief pursuant to § 49-15, and (2) the circumstances of the present action did not justify the exercise of the court's inherent, continuing jurisdiction to afford the defendant equitable relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46309 - Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Rodriguez ("In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Jose Rodriguez and Michelle Rodriguez appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to open, which sought to set aside the court's administrative closure of the file following the approval of a committee sale and to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Rocket Mortgage, LLC. The defendants claim that the court improperly (1) misinterpreted and misapplied Practice Book § 63-1 when it concluded that no appellate stay was in effect that barred the transfer of title to the plaintiff following the approval of the sale, (2) found that the defendants had not diligently pursued a motion to set aside the approval of the sale, (3) failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defendants' motion to open, and (4) determined that the motion to open was untimely as to the judgment of foreclosure by sale and, thus, that it lacked the authority to open that judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court.")
AC 47902 - In re Christian G. ("The petitioner, Christian G., appealed
to the Superior Court challenging the orders of the
Probate Court denying his petitions for the voluntary
appointment of a guardian and for the designation of a
minor child as having special immigrant juvenile status. See General Statutes §§ 45a-608n and 45a-610. Following a trial de novo, the Superior Court denied the petitions, and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment
of the Superior Court.")
AC 46544 - Ammar I. v. Evelyn W. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ammar I.,
appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing
his petition for third-party visitation with O, S, and M
(children), his biological children with respect to whom
his parental rights were terminated in 2019. Although
the plaintiff raises various claims on appeal, the dispositive ones are whether the court properly determined
that (1) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
petition pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (act), which has been
adopted by Connecticut and codified at General Statutes § 46b-115 et seq., and (2) General Statutes § 52-
592 does not apply in the present case. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.")
AC46198 - Moon v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court
improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal, and (2)
rejected his actual innocence claim. We conclude that the habeas court abused
its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, but we
agree with its determination that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of
proving actual innocence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas
court denying the petitioner’s habeas petition.”)
AC46295 - Orlando v. Liburd ("In this action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff, Rocco Orlando, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the third-party defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide), on counts three and four of the operative amended complaint and from the court's denial of a motion for leave to amend an earlier complaint. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied his request to amend, which prevented him from curing alleged pleading deficiencies and (2) dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his counts directed against Nationwide because, contrary to the court's conclusion, the claims therein were ripe under the "make whole doctrine." We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Friday, September 6th
- Hartford Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
Monday, September 9th
- Bridgeport Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, September 10th
- Danbury Law Library is closed from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Thursday, September 12th
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
Friday, September 13th
- Torrington Law Library opens at 12:15 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 10, for September 3, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 227: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 698 - 785)
- Volume 227: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC46385 - State v. Randolph (Violation of probation; revoking probation; “The defendant
claims that the court improperly (1) denied his counsel’s motion to withdraw
her appearance and (2) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into his
competency to stand trial and, consequently, erred in denying his motion for a
competency evaluation pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56d. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46382 - State v. Dayvid J. (Strangulation in the second degree; disorderly conduct; writ of error coram nobis; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition and, therefore, erred in dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46513 - State v. Barnes (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in determining that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s motion because he had been released on special parole and, therefore, was no longer serving ‘an executed period of incarceration’ as prescribed by § 53a-39 (a). We conclude that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s motion but correctly concluded that the defendant was not entitled to relief under § 53a-39 (a) because he was no longer serving an ‘executed period of incarceration.’ The form of the judgment is improper, as the court should have denied rather than dismissed the motion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing the defendant’s motion for modification and remand the case with direction to deny that motion.”)
AC 45960 - N. R. v. M. P. ("The plaintiff, N. R., appeals from the
judgment of the trial court awarding the defendant, M. P., sole legal and physical custody of their two minor
children. On appeal, N. R. claims that the court improperly (1) awarded M. P. sole legal and physical custody
of the children, (2) issued an order that, if N. R. is not
current on child support, he must share one half of the
travel expenses for the minor children to visit him in
Connecticut, and (3) relied on the testimony of the
guardian ad litem in its analysis of the best interests of
the minor children. We disagree and, therefore, affirm
the judgment of the court.")
AC 46228 - Sanchez v. Hartford ("The defendants, the city of Hartford
(city) and James Davis, a police officer employed by
the city, appeal from the judgment of the trial court
rendered after a jury trial finding Davis negligent in
violation of General Statutes § 14-283, the city liable
for indemnification pursuant to General Statutes § 7-465, and finding the plaintiff, Jose Sanchez, contributorily negligent. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court committed plain error by (1) (a) instructing
the jury on common law principles of negligence regarding the operation of a motor vehicle, including the duty
to drive with due care, and (b) failing to instruct the
jury that Davis, as an operator of an emergency vehicle,
was permitted to disregard driving statutes, ordinances
and regulations, and (2) failing to instruct the jury that,
pursuant to § 14-283 (e), other operators of motor vehicles have a mandatory duty to drive to a position parallel
to the curb of the roadway and remain there until the
emergency vehicle has passed, ‘‘[u]pon the immediate
approach of an emergency vehicle making use of . . .
an audible warning signal device and such visible flashing or revolving lights . . . .’’ General Statutes § 14-
283 (e). We conclude that the record does not support the defendants’ claims that the challenged portions of
the jury instructions constituted plain error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Thursday, August 29th
- New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
Friday, August 30th
- Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Monday, September 2nd
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.
Tuesday, September 3rd
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Wednesday, September 4th
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
- New London Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Thursday, September 5th
- Bridgeport Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open from 9:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Friday, September 6th
- Hartford Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
SC 20800 - Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ammar
Idlibi, a pediatric dentist, appeals from the judgment
of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the
trial court, which rendered summary judgment in favor
of the defendant, Hartford Courant Company, on his
defamation claims. The plaintiff’s complaint centers
around two articles published by the defendant that
allegedly exaggerated the scope and seriousness of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Department of
Public Health (department) and the Connecticut State
Dental Commission that resulted in a reprimand, fines, and probation of the plaintiff’s license to practice as
a dentist. The courts below concluded that the five
allegedly defamatory statements contained in the articles either were substantially true or were subject to
the fair report privilege and, therefore, were protected
speech under the first amendment to the United States
constitution. In this certified appeal, the plaintiff’s primary claim is that he should have been permitted to
proceed to trial on a sixth allegation, one only vaguely
alluded to in his pleadings, that a stock (or file) photograph accompanying the defendant’s articles also was
defamatory. Although this case raises important questions about the extent to which the judiciary must
accommodate the inexperience of self-represented litigants, and potentially implicates some constitutional
questions of first impression that the parties have not
fully briefed, we ultimately conclude that this sixth
claim is not properly in the case and, therefore, affirm
the judgment of the Appellate Court.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 9, for August 27, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 227: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 593 - 698)
- Volume 227: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Assignment of Judges
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Monday, August 26th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, August 27th
- New Britain Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed from 9:15 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
- New London Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is open 9:15 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
Wednesday, August 28th
- Stamford Law Library is open from 10:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
Thursday, August 29th
- New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
Friday, August 30th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
AC46512 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Durant (“The defendant, Fred N. Durante, also known as Fred N. Durante, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for approval of trial court and appellate costs and attorney’s fees filed by the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion because it was untimely under Practice Book § 11-21 and was made without any showing of excusable neglect to permit the late filing. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46399 - Bucci v. Bridgeport ("The plaintiff, Elizabeth Bucci, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court following its granting of a motion for summary judgment that was filed by the defendant, the city of Bridgeport, and its denial of her motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court improperly (1) concluded that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist with respect to whether Bridgeport Police Officer Anthony Gianpoalo was acting within the scope of his employment or official duties, and (2) determined that her claim based on the defendant's negligent hiring of Bridgeport Police Officer John Carrano was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46511 - Carty v. Merchant 99-111 Founders, LLC ("The plaintiff, Lloyd Carty, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Merchant 99-111 Founders, LLC, on the plaintiff's one count complaint sounding in premises liability arising out of his slip and fall. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the basis of the ongoing storm doctrine because (1) the defendant never produced evidence to refute the claim that the plaintiff fell on preexisting ice, and (2) the plaintiff raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether he fell on preexisting ice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46215 - State v. Bolden (Evading responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle; tampering
with physical evidence; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) with regard
to the tampering charge, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant believed that a criminal investigation was
about to be instituted and that he had concealed a thing with the purpose to
impair its availability in such investigation, and (2) the court’s refusal to
answer the jury’s questions during its deliberations resulted in an improper
enlargement of the charged crimes. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the
judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46111 - State v. Tahir L. (Sexual assault in the fourth degree; risk of injury to a
child; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his right to due process was
violated by the trial court’s preliminary instructions to the jury, (2) his
right to due process was violated by the court’s final instructions to the
jury, (3) the court erred in admitting certain evidence, and (4) the state
committed prosecutorial impropriety. We affirm the judgments of the trial
court.”)
SC 20750 - State v. Mebane (Conviction of felony murder, murder, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit; “Following a jury trial, the defendant, Lonnie Mebane, was convicted of murder, criminal possession of a firearm, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, Eric Diaz. In this direct appeal, the defendant raises the following claims: (1) the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial by asking three witnesses questions that favored the state and prejudiced the defendant, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a reasonable inference that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim, and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence and the defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime. We affirm the judgment.”)
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Tuesday, August 20th
- Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries will open at 10:30 a.m.
- Middletown Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Wednesday, August 21st
- Middletown Law Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Thursday, August 22nd
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Hartford Law Library is closed between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library opens at 12:30 p.m.
- New Haven Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library opens at 1:30 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library opens at 12:30 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library opens at 2:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
Friday, August 23rd
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library opens at 12:00 p.m.
Monday, August 26th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, August 27th
- New Britain Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is open 9:15 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
Wednesday, August 28th
- Stamford Law Library is open from 10:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
Thursday, August 29th
- New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
Friday, August 30th
- Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.