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.

Administrative Appeal Supreme Court - Slip Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5951

  • SC20805 - The William W. Backus Hospital v. Stonington (Tax appeal; application for tax exemption "We conclude, therefore, that the personal property owned by the plaintiff and used 'incident to the rendering of health care services’ at the rehabilitation facility, which is located in a suite, subleased to the plaintiff, of a building that Hartford Healthcare acquired by lease, is rendered taxable by §12-66a, even if otherwise exempt from taxation under §12-81 (7) or (16). General Statutes § 12-66a. Accordingly, the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.")


Landlord/Tenant Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5948

SC20787 - Chabad Lubavitch of Western & Southern New England, Inc. v. Shemtov ("This appeal requires us to determine the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate before a Jewish rabbinical court called a 'Bais Din' to resolve a dispute between the parties concerning the possession of certain real property. The defendants Rabbi Moshe Shemtov, Chabad of Stamford, Inc., and Gan Yeladim of Stamford, Inc., appeal from the trial court's judgment granting possession of a commercial property to the plaintiff, Chabad Lubavitch of Western and Southern New England, Inc. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in failing to enforce an arbitration agreement that the plaintiff was bound by and refused to honor. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5950

AC45666 - Haworth Country Club, LLC v. United Bank ("The plaintiff, Haworth Country Club, LLC, individually and derivatively on behalf of Newberry Village Holdings, LLC (NVH), appeals, following the granting of a motion to strike, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, United Bank, on all counts of the plaintiff's third amended complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in ruling on the motion to strike, the court (1) did not apply the proper legal standard, (2) erred in concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring a cause of action against the defendant, and that the plaintiff's status as a noncustomer of the defendant is dispositive as to preclude any allegations of liability against the defendant, (3) erred in concluding that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendant violated banking statutes and regulations regarding what a bank is required to do before opening an account for a customer are not allegations of conduct offensive to public policy under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and that General Statutes § 35-1 is inapplicable to the plaintiff's claims, and (4) improperly failed to address that the defendant, as of the date of service of this action, was on notice that the subject bank account had been opened under an improper and fictitious name and that the money in the account was owned by another party. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5949

AC46260 - State v. Jean-Baptiste ("The defendant, Oles Jean-Baptiste, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124 (a) (1), assault of public safety personnel in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c (a) (1), and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that his sixth amendment right to counsel was violated by the trial court's alleged inadequate response to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5947

AC46943 - 914 North Colony, LLC v. 99 West, LLC ("The plaintiff, 914 North Colony, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its summary process action against the defendant, 99 West, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had reinstated the tenancy by accepting the defendant's tendered payments after service of the notice to quit, despite the fact that the notice to quit included a use and occupancy disclaimer. We disagree with the plaintiff's characterization of the court's judgment and conclude that the court properly found that the plaintiff's actions rendered the notice to quit equivocal, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the summary process action. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5945

SC20808, SC20810, SC20811 - 131 Beach Road, LLC v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission ("These consolidated appeals challenge the judgment of the trial court reversing the decision of the defendant, the Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield (commission), on the two part application filed by the plaintiff, 131 Beach Road, LLC, to construct a forty unit, multifamily affordable housing development near Fairfield's Old Post Road Historic District (historic district). The commission denied the first part of the plaintiff's application, which sought a zone text amendment to permit multifamily affordable housing units within the residence A zone district. It approved the second part of the plaintiff's application, which sought a site plan and a certificate of zoning compliance, but imposed two conditions on its approval, one of which limited the height of the proposed building and thereby reduced the number of affordable housing units. The trial court sustained the plaintiff's zoning appeals pursuant to General Statutes § 8-30g (g), concluding in relevant part that the commission had failed (1) to consider the zone text amendment in light of the requirements of § 8-30g, and (2) to satisfy its statutory burden of establishing that the height condition was necessary to protect a substantial public interest that outweighed the need for affordable housing in Fairfield. We agree with the trial court that the commission improperly imposed a height condition on its approval of the plaintiff's site plan and certificate of zoning compliance, and improperly denied the zone text amendment insofar as it applied to the proposed development at issue in this appeal, but we disagree that the commission improperly denied the zone text amendment insofar as it applied to the entire residence A zone district.

. . . .

The judgment is reversed with respect to the trial court's determination concerning the commission's denial of a zone text amendment applicable to the residence A zone district and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to remand to the commission and to order the commission to grant the plaintiff's application for a zone text amendment limited solely to the subject property; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.")


Attorney Discipline Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5946

SC20751 - Epright v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. ("This case requires us to consider whether, under Practice Book § 13-4, an attorney may be sanctioned for engaging in ex parte communications with an expert witness who has been retained and disclosed by the adverse party for the purpose of providing testimony in litigation. The defendant in error, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's order imposing sanctions on the plaintiff in error, Brignole, Bush & Lewis, LLC (firm), the law firm representing the plaintiff, Jacqueline Epright, in the underlying underinsured motorist action brought by Epright against Liberty Mutual. The trial court imposed monetary sanctions after finding that attorneys with the firm engaged in impermissible ex parte communications with Liberty Mutual's expert witness, James Depuy, an orthopedic surgeon retained and disclosed by Liberty Mutual to provide testimony regarding damages and causation. The trial court determined that the firm's communication with Depuy was a clear violation of the rules of expert discovery set forth in § 13-4. The Appellate Court reversed the order of the trial court, concluding that § 13-4 does not clearly prohibit ex parte communication between an attorney and an opposing party's disclosed expert witness. We agree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


New OLR Reports

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5944

The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following new reports:

Beverage Container Redemption Fraud - 2024-R-0055 - Describes (1) Connecticut’s law prohibiting interstate beverage container redemption fraud and (2) similar laws in other states. This report updates information in OLR Report 2013-R-0006.

Noise Restrictions for Motor Vehicles - 2024-R-0106 - Provides information on the maximum allowable decibel levels and other noise-related restrictions for motor vehicles under state law. This report updates OLR Report 2009-R-0205.

Regulation of Cottage Food Businesses in the Northeast - 2024-R-0087 - Describes (1) Connecticut’s cottage food licensing regulations; (2) the legislative history of Connecticut’s annual gross sales (revenue) cap and requirement that sellers directly deliver goods to customers; and (3) New York’s and the other New England states’ sales thresholds and limitations on sales venues and delivery methods.

Table on Penalties - 2024-R-0113 - Provides information on penalties for different crime classifications, violations and infractions.

Service Animals and Registration - 2024-R-0090 - Which animals qualify as service animals under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Connecticut laws protecting their use in public places? Do these laws require the animals to be registered? This report updates, in part, OLR Issue Brief 2018-R-0199. It does not address other related federal laws (e.g., the Fair Housing Act and Air Carrier Access Act).

Minors Voting in Municipal Elections - 2024-R-0080 - What states authorize minors to vote in municipal elections? Under what authority have municipalities implemented these provisions? Has Connecticut considered any recent legislation that would lower the voting age?


Law Library Hours: July 10th to July 19th

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5943

The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.

Wednesday, July 10th

  • Hartford Law Library opens at 1:30 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library is closed.
  • New London Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.

Thursday, July 11th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Friday, July 12th

  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.

Monday, July 15th

  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is open from 9:15 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.

Tuesday, July 16th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, July 17th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, July 18th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.

Friday, July 19th

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


Connecticut Law Journal - July 9, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5942

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 2, for July 9, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 226: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 547 - 651)
  • Volume 226: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5941

AC 47283 - In re Javonte B. et al. ("The respondent father, Amaris B., appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner), terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor children, J and A. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate his parental rights because, contrary to the determination of the court, he had an existing relationship and bond with his children. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Administrative Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5940

SC20816 - Newton Neighborhood Environmental Trust v. Connecticut Siting Council (Administrative appeal; standing, "The present appeal relates to the proposed construction of a 100 foot tall cell phone tower (tower) on a residentially zoned parcel of real property located in the town of Woodbridge (town). ...There is no inherently obvious connection between a facility’s adverse impact on property values and the probable environmental impact of the facility or the listed significant adverse effects. We cannot conclude, therefore, that a facility’s impact on property values will always be relevant to the council’s inquiry pursuant to § 16-50p (a) (3) (B), and, accordingly, it is an unenumerated significant adverse effect required to be considered by the council.")


Habeas Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5939

AC46421 - Best v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner, Durante Best, appeals, following the grant of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing, on its own motion pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (1) and (2), his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on October 5, 2017, which challenged only the structure of his sentence on the convictions that were affirmed by this court after his first criminal trial.”

“Because there is no practical relief in the present appeal that we can afford the petitioner, we dismiss the appeal as moot.”)

AC46531 - Williams v. Commissioner of Correction (“Following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner, Stanley Williams, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by declining to issue a capias for his former girlfriend, whom he had sought to call as a witness at his habeas trial. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Malpractice Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5938

AC46208 - Martinelli v. Martinelli (“In the latest chapter in this family dispute arising out of the administration of the estate of Kevin P. Martinelli (Kevin), the plaintiffs, Aubri E. Martinelli, Zachary Martinelli, and Linzy Martinelli, who are Kevin’s children, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, Martin P. Martinelli (Martin), who is Kevin’s brother and was the first executor of Kevin’s estate, and Reid & Riege, P.C. (Reid & Riege), the law firm that represented Martin in the administration of Kevin’s estate. The court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims of breach of fiduciary duty, common-law conversion, and statutory theft against Martin and their legal malpractice claim against Reid & Riege. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that they lacked standing to assert their claims against the defendants, and (2) denied their request to amend their complaint. We are unpersuaded by either claim and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5937

AC46268 - Stoor v. Vehs (“The intervening plaintiff, Attorney Gregory P. Cohan, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a court trial wherein the court determined that the plaintiff, Zachary Stoor, owed Cohan $9000 for his services as the plaintiff’s attorney. Specifically, Cohan claims that the court improperly awarded him less than the amount provided for in his contingency fee agreement with the plaintiff. On cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that ‘the discharge of an attorney in a contingency fee case prior to settlement does not constitute a breach of contract under Connecticut law and the award of damages for quantum meruit under [the breach of contract count] . . . was improper.’ As to both the appeal and cross appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5936

AC 45572 - R. G.-R. v. S. R. ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the plaintiff, R. G.-R., appeals from the judgments of the trial court awarding the defendant, S. R., sole legal and physical custody of their minor child. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges postjudgment orders made by the court on May 26 and October 26, 2022. As to the May 26, 2022 judgment, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by granting the defendant’s motion to modify custody and motions for contempt filed by the defendant and the guardian ad litem, and denying a motion for contempt that she filed. As to the October 26, 2022 judgment, she claims that her constitutional right to procedural due process was violated when the court modified custody without affording her notice and a hearing and that the court failed to base the modification on the best interest of the minor child or a substantial change in circumstances. We dismiss as moot the plaintiff’s appeal from the May 26, 2022 judgment, except the portions of the appeal that challenge the court’s contempt rulings, which we affirm in part and reverse in part. We also dismiss as moot the plaintiff’s appeal from the October 26, 2022 judgment.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5935

AC46250 - Edgewood Properties, LLC v. Dynamic Multimedia, LLC ("In this summary process action, the defendants, Daniel A. Martin, Dynamic Multimedia, LLC, and Badger Entertainment, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Edgewood Properties, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment of possession of the subject property based on lapse of time, (2) denied their motion in limine to present evidence of a purported settlement agreement reached by the parties, and (3) denied their motion for summary enforcement of the purported settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Law Library Hours: July 3rd to July 12th

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5934

The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.

Wednesday, July 3rd

  • New Britain Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, July 4th

  • All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.

Friday, July 5th

  • Hartford Law Library is closed.
  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • New London Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.

Monday July 8th

  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • New Britain Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, July 9th

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

Wednesday, July 10th

  • Hartford Law Library opens at 1:30 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library is closed.
  • New London Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.

Thursday, July 11th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Friday, July 12th

  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.


Business Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5933

SC20821, SC20823 - Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy (“These appeals arise from a dispute over whether the defendants misappropriated the trade secrets of the plaintiff, Dur-A-Flex, Inc., in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), General Statutes § 35-50 et seq. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on certain of its claims and for several defendants on other claims.” The plaintiff appeals from the judgment in favor of the defendants Indue Sales and Services, Inc. (Indue), Christopher Krone, Engineered Coatings, Inc. (ECI), and Merrifield Paint Company, Inc. (Merrifield). The defendants Steven Lipman, Durafloor Industrial Flooring & Coating, Inc. (Durafloor), and ProRez Performance Resins and Coatings, LLC (ProRez), appeal from the judgment against them in favor of the plaintiff. In turn, the plaintiff cross appeals, challenging a number of adverse rulings. We conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that the plaintiff was not required to prove that Lipman and, through him, Durafloor and ProRez, had knowledge of the plaintiff’s trade secrets and used that knowledge in order to establish the elements of misappropriation under General Statutes § 35-51 (b) (2) (B) (iii). The case must therefore be remanded for a new trial limited to that issue. We further conclude that the trial court applied an incorrect standard when it crafted the monetary and injunctive relief as to Lipman, Durafloor, and ProRez. If the trial court determines on remand that those defendants had knowledge of and used the plaintiff’s trade secrets, it must then apply the correct standard. Finally, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that the noncompete agreement between the plaintiff and the named defendant, Samet Dy (Samet), was unenforceable because continued employment can never constitute consideration for a noncompete agreement. The judgment as to the breach of the noncompete agreement claim must herefore be reversed, and the trial court must determine on remand whether there was sufficient consideration for the noncompete agreement and, if so, whether Samet breached the agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.”)

SC20822 - Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy (“This appeal arises from a dispute between the plaintiff, Dur-A-Flex, Inc., a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, and the named defendant, Samet Dy, a former employee of the plaintiff, over whether the defendant misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), General Statutes § 35-50 et seq. The plaintiff brought this action, claiming that the defendant had breached his noncompete agreement with the plaintiff, misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets in violation of CUTSA, and breached his duty of confidentiality. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement and breach of the duty of confidentiality claims. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the trial court improperly rendered judgment for the defendant on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim on the ground that it was unenforceable for lack of consideration, (2) even if the noncompete agreement was invalid, it became enforceable when the defendant orally reaffirmed his promise not to compete, and (3) the trial court improperly rendered judgment for the defendant on the breach of the duty of confidentiality claim on the ground that it was preempted by CUTSA. With respect to the plaintiff’s first claim, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that the noncompete agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law and that the case must be remanded for further proceedings on that issue. We reject the plaintiff’s second and third claims. We therefore reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.”


Connecticut Law Journal - July 2, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5932

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 1, for July 2, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 349: Orders (Pages 917 - 917)
  • Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 226: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 431 - 547)
  • Volume 226: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies