AC38851 - Thomson v. Dept. of Social Services ("The plaintiff, Kim Thomson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, the Department of Social Services. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly held that insufficient facts were presented to support a prima facie case for disability discrimination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38610,AC38657 - Simmons v. Weiss (Medical malpractice; motions to dismiss; motion to open judgment of dismissal; jurisdiction; "The defendants, Scott Weiss, Norwalk Hospital (hospital), and Scott Brown, appeal following the trial court's granting in part of the motion filed by the plaintiff, David Simmons, to open a prior judgment that had been rendered against him. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly opened the judgment more than four months after it was rendered when no exception to the timeliness requirement existed. We conclude that the trial court did not have the authority to open the judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's ruling on the motion to open and remand the case with direction to dismiss the motion to open.")

• Posted in:
• Medical Malpractice Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC19694 - State v. Kelley (Violation of probation; probation revocation; certification from Appellate Court; "In this certified appeal, we address whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over a probation violation charge that is adjudicated after the defendant's probation sentence was originally scheduled to expire. The trial court in the present case found that the defendant, Tyrone Lawrence Kelley, had violated his probation conditions and revoked his probation, but it did so after his probation sentence was originally set to expire. The defendant claimed before the Appellate Court that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it decided the violation charge. The Appellate Court disagreed and affirmed the trial court's judgment. State v. Kelley, 164 Conn. App. 232, 242, 244, 137 A.3d 822 (2016). We conclude that the defendant's probation sentence had not expired at the time the trial court decided the violation charge because, pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-31 (b), the running of his sentence had been interrupted while the violation charge was pending. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

AC38967 - State v. Megos (Violation of probation; "The defendant, Zane R. Megos, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a¬-32 and imposing a sentence of sixty months incarceration. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court: (1) erroneously found that he violated the conditions of his probation, (2) abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior crimes that he had committed, and (3) abused its discretion by revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. ")

AC39077 - State v. Holmes (Felony murder; home invasion; conspiracy to commit home invasion; criminal possession of pistol or revolver; "The defendant, Evan Jaron Holmes, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, home invasion in violation of General Statutes § 53a-100aa (a) (2), and conspiracy to commit home invasion in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-100aa. The defendant also appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) overruled his objection to the state's use of a peremptory challenge to strike an African-American prospective juror; (2) admitted a tape-recorded statement of a witness pursuant to State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743, 753, 513 A.2d 86, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S. Ct. 597, 93 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986); and (3) permitted the state to cross-examine the defendant regarding his conversation with a police detective at the time of his arrest in violation of his right to remain silent. We are not persuaded by the defendant's claims on appeal and, thus, affirm the judgment of conviction.")

• AC39077 Concurrence - State v. Holmes

AC38468 - State v. Acampora (Assault of disabled person in third degree; disorderly conduct; "The defendant, Joseph C. Acampora, Jr., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of assault of a disabled person in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61a and one count of disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182 (a) (1). The defendant was found not guilty of interfering with an emergency call in violation of General Statutes § 53a-183b. The defendant represented himself at trial. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his right to counsel under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution when it permitted him to represent himself without obtaining a valid waiver of his right to counsel and (2) violated his right to present a defense, as guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, when it denied his motion to open the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39287 - State v. Jason B. (Motion to correct illegal sentence; "The defendant, Jason B., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court dismissed the motion on the ground that the defendant failed to present a colorable claim that his sentence had been imposed in an illegal manner. The defendant claims this was error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC38884 - Dejana v. Dejana ("The plaintiff, Wendy J. Dejana, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her post-judgment motion for contempt against the defendant, Michael Dejana. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court, in declining to hold the defendant in contempt, improperly interpreted the parties’ separation agreement, which had been incorporated into the judgment of dissolution. In support of this claim, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly determined that the separation agreement (1) required the defendant to pay unallocated alimony and child support based upon a percentage of his base salary and annual incentive cash bonus, and (2) permitted the defendant to use the entirety of the income he received from vested stock units, pursuant to his employer’s long-term incentive program, to fund the private college education of the parties’ son. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC38800 - Lugo v. Lugo ("The defendant, Teresa Lugo, appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the postdissolution motion for modification filed by the plaintiff, William Lugo. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in (1) granting the plaintiff’s motion for modification by awarding the plaintiff sole legal custody of the minor child, and (2) denying her motion in limine seeking to prevent consideration of the question of sole legal custody. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal for August 29, 2017 is now available.

Full issue: Vol. LXXIX, No. 9 (August 29,2017)

• 
  Table of Contents
• Volume 174 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 679 - 680
• Volume 326: Connecticut Reports (Pages 668 - 686)
• Volume 326: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 175: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 789 - 870)
• Volume 175: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 176: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 93)
• Volume 176: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC19401- Maio v. New Haven ("Under General Statutes § 53-39a, a police officer acquitted of crimes 'allegedly committed by such officer in the course of his duty' is entitled to indemnification from 'his employing governmental unit for economic loss sustained by him as a result of such prosecution . . . .' The plaintiff, Anthony J. Maio, a police officer with the New Haven Police Department (department), sought such reimbursement from the defendant, the city of New Haven, after he was acquitted of charges of sexual assault in the fourth degree and unlawful restraint for conduct involving two young women that allegedly occurred while he was working an 'extra duty' shift at a local nightclub. When the defendant declined to reimburse the plaintiff in accordance with § 53-39a, the plaintiff brought this action for indemnification. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly (1) instructed the jury on the meaning of the phrase 'in the course of [the officer's] duty' as that language is used in § 53-39a, and (2) precluded the defendant's use of the testimony of two key state's witnesses at the plaintiff's criminal trial, namely, A and J, the complainants and alleged victims of the plaintiff's claimed misconduct (complainants). Although we disagree with the defendant's claim of instructional impropriety, we agree that the trial court improperly prohibited the defendant from using the complainants' prior testimony and, further, that that evidentiary error was not harmless. We conclude, therefore, that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

Monday, August 28th

• New Britain Law Library will be closed from 12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.

Tuesday, August 29th

• Hartford Law Library will be open until 3:30 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, August 30th

• Torrington Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 3:15 p.m.
  

Thursday, August 31st

• Rockville Law Library will be open until 3:00 p.m.
  

Friday, September 1st

• Danbury Law Library will be closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC19796- Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Rozbicki ("The defendant, Zbigniew S. Rozbicki, an Attorney, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following presentment by the plaintiff, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, concluding that he had violated rules 3.1, 8.2 (a), and 8.4 (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and suspending him from the practice of law for a period of four years. In challenging the trial court's judgment, the defendant raises a multitude of claims, including the following: (1) that the trial court violated his constitutional right to due process; (2) that the allegations in the presentment were barred under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel; (3) that the plaintiff failed to prove professional misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; and (4) that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a four year suspension without considering certain factors set forth in the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (standards). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Legal Malpractice & Attorney Discipline Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC39695 - Rose B. v. Dawson ("The defendant, Princess Dickson Dawson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for a civil protection order filed by the plaintiff, Rose B. The defendant claims (1) that the court abused its discretion in granting the application because the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to warrant such relief and (2) the court improperly denied the defendant’s ‘request for a continuance and reconsideration.’ We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions

AC37864 - Rockhill v. Danbury Hospital ("The defendant, Danbury Hospital, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Anna Rockhill, following a trial to the court. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erroneously found that (1) a defect on the defendant’s property that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall was a reasonably foreseeable defect; (2) the defect caused the plaintiff to fall; and (3) all of the plaintiff’s medical expenses were caused by the fall rather than by her preexisting spinal stenosis. The defendant also claims that the court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness pertaining to the causation element of her negligence claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC38045, AC38083 - Freese v. Dept. of Social Services, Cariglio v. Dept. of Social Services (Administrative appeals; "Our Supreme Court has construed remedial statutes liberally to give effect to their purpose. See Dorry v. Garden, 313 Conn. 516, 533, 98 A.3d 55 (2014). The plaintiffs, Kathleen Freese and Gustav Cariglio, appeal from judgments of the trial court dismissing their administrative appeals. The principal issue in these cases is whether General Statutes § 52-109, a remedial savings statute, could be utilized by the plaintiffs to save from dismissal their administrative appeals commenced in the names of the wrong persons as plaintiffs.

. . . The judgments are reversed and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")

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

AC38633 - State v. Galberth ("The defendant, Shakee S. Galberth, appeals following the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss his violation of probation charge. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the probation violation proceeding, and (2) improperly denied his motion to dismiss because his probationary period had expired. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39098 - State v. Halili ("The defendant, Skender Halili, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a. The defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his sixth amendment right to confront his accuser when it prohibited him from cross-examining the complainant with respect to her mental state or psychiatric history, (2) violated his sixth amendment right to present a defense and confront his accuser when it prohibited him from presenting evidence purporting to show that the complainant had solicited a bribe from the defendant’s wife, and (3) improperly admitted evidence of the complainant’s demeanor after she made an initial complaint to the police. We agree with the defendant’s second claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the court for a new trial.")

AC37956 - State v. Steele ("The defendant, Thomas Steele, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4), conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-134 (a) (4), and conspiracy to commit larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-124 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him of robbery in the first degree; (2) the trial court abused its discretion and violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution when it permitted a detective to testify about historic cell site analysis without being qualified as an expert witness; and (3) his cumulative conviction and sentences for conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit larceny violate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. We agree with the defendant that his cumulative convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit larceny violate the double jeopardy, but we reject the defendant’s other claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in part and affirm the judgment in part.")

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

AC38371 - Salters v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) failed to apply the strict standard of materiality to his claim of a Brady violation, which included factual allegations that the prosecution knowingly relied on false testimony; (2) denied his claim of ineffective assistance by his prior habeas trial counsel (habeas counsel) for failing to raise a claim that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel (trial counsel) was ineffective for failing to raise a claim of instructional error; (3) failed to apply the ‘‘findings’’ that this court made in his appeal from the judgment in his first habeas case; and (4) found that the decision of his appellate counsel on direct appeal (appellate counsel) to forgo raising a prosecutorial impropriety claim was a reasonable strategic decision. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

AC38585 - Sosa v. Commissioner of Correction ("The self-represented, incarcerated plaintiff, Andres R. Sosa, brought this action for monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against employees of the Department of Correction, including Commissioner of Correction Scott Semple, Warden Carol Chapdelaine, and District Administrator Angel Quiros, individually and in their official capacities. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants wrongly revoked his visitation privileges in violation of his rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. The trial court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to all claims for monetary damages as to all of the defendants in their official and individual capacities. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the defendants in their individual capacities, but denied the motion to dismiss his claims for prospective declarative and injunctive relief against the defendants in their official capacities. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of dismissal of all of his claims against the defendants in their individual capacities and his claim for monetary damages in their official capacities. Because there is no final judgment as to the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants in their official capacities, we dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his claim for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing all of the claims against the defendants in their individual capacities.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Judicial Branch has posted recently adopted revisions to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, to take effect on October 8, 2017.

The amendments were approved by the Appellate Court on July 6, 2017 and by the Supreme Court on July 19, 2017. The amendments make changes to rules 62-7, 62-8A, 63-1, 66-8, 67-8, 72-2, 72-3, 79a-2, 82-5 and 82-6.

Amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective October 8, 2017

• Posted in:
• Court Rules,
• FYI

SC19565 - Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction ("The present appeal requires us to determine the appropriate test for resolving whether an inmate’s prison classification implicates a protected liberty interest. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the habeas court, which dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Anthony A., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction, 159 Conn. App. 226, 242, 122 A.3d 730 (2015). The respondent claims that, contrary to the conclusion of the Appellate Court, the habeas court properly dismissed the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to allege a protected liberty interest. The petitioner responds that the allegations in the petition, which claim that he was incorrectly classified as a sex offender and that he suffered negative consequences as a result of that erroneous classification, sufficiently alleged a cognizable liberty interest to confer jurisdiction on the court. We agree with the petitioner and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

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

The Connecticut Law Journal for August 22, 2017 is now available.

Full issue: Vol. LXXIX, No. 8 (August 22,2017)

• Table of Contents
• Volume 326: Connecticut Reports (Pages 540 - 667)
• Volume 326: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 175: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 632 - 789)
• Volume 175: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

The 2017 edition of Assumed or Fictitious Names in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides page.

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

AC38685 - Commissioner of Social Services v. Zarnetski ("The plaintiff, the Commissioner of Social Services, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court affirming the order of the Family Support Magistrate (magistrate) dismissing the plaintiff’s support petition for failure to provide a copy of the acknowledgment of paternity. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in affirming the order of the magistrate because the plaintiff was not required to provide a copy of the acknowledgment of paternity for the magistrate to proceed on the support petition. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38126 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Herman ("The defendant, J. Maurice Herman, appeals following the trial court’s issuance of a turnover order pursuant to General Statutes § 52-356b. The plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., applied for the order.The defendant claims that (1) the court improperly exercised personal jurisdiction over him, and (2) the order improperly deviated from the court’s prior oral ruling granting the plaintiff’s application. We disagree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions