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.

Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3200

AC40037 - Adkins v. Commissioner of Correction ("Following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner, Dennis Adkins, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim that his prior habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance on the basis that he failed (1) to claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise the petitioner with respect to his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, (2) to present evidence in support of the petitioner's claim that his guilty plea was the result of trial counsel's ineffective assistance, and (3) to claim that trial counsel's conflict of interest resulted in the petitioner's guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3199

AC40143 - Errichetti v. Botoff (Malicious erection of fence; injunction; "This case is about a so-called 'spite fence' erected along the border between two residential properties in Greenwich. The defendants, Daniel Botoff and Laura Botoff, appeal from the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Michael Errichetti, entering an injunction pursuant to General Statutes § 52-480, which required the defendants to remove the fence that they had constructed on their property and to restore the surrounding area. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred by (1) finding the second and third elements of § 52-480 satisfied, namely, a malicious erection of the structure and the intention to injure the enjoyment of the adjacent landowner's property, and (2) ordering the defendants to restore the area in which the fence was erected to its previous condition. We disagree, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3198

AC40205 - Bongiorno v. Capone ("The defendant, Joseph Capone, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in accordance with the second revised finding of facts and report of an attorney trial referee (referee) to whom this case was referred for trial, awarding the plaintiff, Frank Bongiorno: compensatory damages of $17,000 on the plaintiff's claim of breach of contract, plus statutory prejudgment interest on that sum, under General Statutes § 37-3a, at the rate of 10 percent per annum; and treble damages of $51,000 on the plaintiff's claim of statutory theft under General Statutes § 52-564, less $17,000 to avoid duplication of the damages awarded for breach of contract. The defendant claims that the court improperly: (1) concluded that the plaintiff had standing in his individual capacity to pursue claims of breach of contract and statutory theft against the defendant based upon his withdrawal of $17,000 from the checking account of AAA Advantage Carting & Demolition Service, LLC (company), a limited liability company in which the defendant had a 50 percent membership interest that he had agreed to sell to the plaintiff for $200,000 on the basis of a binding term sheet that did not authorize the challenged withdrawal; (2) rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the merits of his breach of contract claim without making legal conclusions as to the applicability of the waiver-of-suit provisions in the contractual documents to that claim; and (3) rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the merits of his statutory theft claim.")

Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3197

AC38957 - Brochard v. Brochard ("The defendant, Britt Brochard, appeals from the postdissolution judgment of the trial court rendered after a hearing on financial issues raised by the parties in multiple motions for contempt and modification. The self-represented defendant's brief is not a model of clarity, but after a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we have divined that the defendant claims that the court erred in (1) denying her motion for contempt alleging that the plaintiff, Thomas Brochard, had failed to pay his share of the minor children's medical and extracurricular activity expenses; (2) denying her motion for contempt alleging that the plaintiff had violated orders related to the mortgage on the former marital home; (3) denying her motion for contempt alleging that the plaintiff had failed to pay her one half of the amounts of 2010 tax refunds he received; (4) denying her motion for modification of the court's order allocating the parties' obligation pertaining to payment of the guardian ad litem's fees; (5) granting the plaintiff's motion for modification of child support, thereby decreasing his obligation, and failing to consider her cross motion for modification, which sought an increase in the amount of child support; and (6) granting her motion for contempt regarding certain alimony payments, but failing to order the plaintiff to pay her the full amount she was owed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39719 - Fredo v. Fredo ("The defendant, Kristin Fredo, appeals from the judgment of the trial court on several postdissolution motions rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Thomas Fredo. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's motion for modification of child support for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while also denying the motion for modification, (2) disposed of the defendant's motion for an accounting, (3) granted the plaintiff's motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, and (4) awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiff. We reverse the judgment of the court granting the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's motion for modification and awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff, and we dismiss, as moot, the remainder of the appeal.")

AC40599 - Peixoto v. Peixoto ("The defendant, Mark M. Peixoto, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion for modification of alimony filed by the plaintiff, Katherine B. Peixoto. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in granting the modification of alimony after it 'improperly construed the legal standards set forth by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Dan v. Dan, [315 Conn. 1, 105 A.3d 118 (2014)].' We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

Administrative Appeal Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3196

SC19800, SC19801, SC19802 - Dish Network, LLC v. Commissioner of Revenue Services (Tax appeal; claim that plaintiff satellite video company's failure to request administrative review of audit pursuant to statute (§ 12-268i) barred subsequent request for refund pertaining to same tax period; "The principal issue in this case is the extent to which General Statutes § 12-256 (b) (2) imposes a tax on gross earnings from a satellite television operator's business operations in this state, which include the transmission of video programming, the sale and lease of equipment required to view that programming, the installation and maintenance of such equipment, digital video recording (DVR) service, and payment related fees. The defendant, the Commissioner of Revenue Services (commissioner), appeals, and the plaintiff, Dish Network, LLC, cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court sustaining in part the plaintiff's tax appeals and ordering a refund of taxes previously paid on earnings from the sale of certain goods and services. Addressing the parties' various contentions, we reach the following conclusions: (1) the trial court properly determined that General Statutes § 12-268i does not provide the exclusive procedure for challenging a tax assessment for a tax period that has been the subject of an audit, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not barred from seeking a refund for certain audited tax periods pursuant to General Statutes § 12-268c (a) (1); (2) § 12-256 (b) (2) imposes a tax on gross earnings from the transmission of video programming by satellite and certain payment related fees, but not the sale, lease, installation, or maintenance of equipment or DVR service; and (3) the trial court properly determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest on the refund pursuant to § 12-268c (b) (1). Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgments of the trial court.")

General Statutes Amended or Repealed in 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3194

Connecticut Law Journal - September 25, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3192

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 13, for September 25, 2018 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 330: Connecticut Reports (Pages 251 - 280)
  • Volume 330: Orders (Pages 901 - 908)
  • Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 185: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 118)
  • Volume 185: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
  • Volume 185: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies