Monday, February 4th

• New Britain Law Library will open at 1:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library will be closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

Thursday, January 31st

• Danbury Law Library will close at 3:30 p.m.
• Hartford Law Library will open at 10:30 a.m.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library will close at 4:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20216, SC20217, SC20218 - Feehan v. Marcone ("These expedited public interest appeals arise from an apparent mix-up at the Bunnell High School polling place in the town of Stratford (town), where it is alleged that approximately seventy-six voters who should have received ballots for the 120th assembly district election were instead given ballots for the 122nd assembly district, rendering those voters unable to vote for their assembly district's state representative. The plaintiff, Jim Feehan, who is the Republican Party's candidate for state representative in the 120th assembly district, brought this action seeking declaratory relief, a new election, and an injunction prohibiting the defendants, Secretary of the State Denise W. Merrill, Treasurer Denise L. Nappier, and Comptroller Kevin Lembo (state defendants), from declaring the intervening defendant, Phillip L. Young III, the Democratic Party's candidate, as the winner of that election. After the Chief Justice granted the parties' separate applications for permission to appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, the plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint in part as barred by the elections clause set forth in article third, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution, and the defendants appealed from the grant of the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction. We conclude that the elections clause gives our state House of Representatives exclusive jurisdiction over this election contest, and we disagree with the plaintiff's claims that (1) General Statutes § 9-328, which governs contested elections for 'municipal office,' confers jurisdiction on the courts over this case, and (2) under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution; see U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2; state courts have jurisdiction over his federal constitutional claims, notwithstanding the elections clause in the Connecticut constitution. Accordingly, we also agree with the defendants' claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the state defendants from canvassing the votes and declaring a winner. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court insofar as it dismissed the complaint and reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to its issuance of a temporary injunction.")

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 31, for January 29, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 330: Orders (Pages 962 - 963)
• Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 187: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 438 - 587)
• Volume 187: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 187: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC40462 - Caron v. Connecticut Pathology Group, P.C. ("This appeal arises out of a medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiffs . . . against the defendant . . . after a false positive cancer diagnosis. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their complaint against the defendant for failure to attach to their complaint a legally sufficient opinion letter authored by a similar health care provider as required by General Statutes § 52-190a (a). On appeal, the plaintiffs, who attached to their complaint an opinion letter authored by a board certified clinical pathologist, claim that the court found that anatomic pathology is a medical specialty distinct from clinical pathology and, on the basis of that finding and the allegations in the complaint, improperly determined that the plaintiffs were required to submit an opinion letter authored by a board certified anatomic pathologist. We disagree and conclude that the court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC40868 - State v. Carey ("The defendant, Alanna R. Carey, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony, (2) the state engaged in prosecutorial impropriety that deprived her of a fair trial, and (3) the trial court's instruction on witness credibility improperly misled the jury. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40998 - State v. Peluso ("The defendant, Bernard J. Peluso, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, on two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A), and three counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly granted the state's motion to amend its information. Specifically, he argues that the state lacked good cause to amend its information during trial and, alternatively, that the court improperly concluded that his substantive rights would not be prejudiced by the amendment. We disagree and, thus, affirm the judgment of conviction.")

AC40155 - State v. Jerrell R. ("The defendant, Jerrell R., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2), and unlawful restraint in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-96 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his conviction of both risk of injury to a child charges violate his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and (2) the prosecutor made improper remarks to the jury during closing and rebuttal arguments that deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40378 - State v. Anderson ("The defendant, Francis Anderson, appeals following the trial court's denial in part and dismissal in part of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, and from the dismissal of his related motion for a new mittimus to implement the court's order on the date it imposed the challenged sentence that he receive all pretrial jail credits to which he is legally entitled toward that sentence. The sentence at issue is a term of incarceration, which the court ordered that the defendant serve consecutively to an unexpired term of incarceration that he was serving at the time of the offenses at issue at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital (Whiting), to which he had been committed to receive psychiatric care and treatment following his acquittal by reason of mental disease or defect of a third set of unrelated charges. The defendant does not challenge the length of his consecutive sentence. Instead, he claims that that sentence was imposed on him in an illegal manner because the court, after pronouncing that sentence, ordered that he be transferred at once to a state correctional facility to complete his earlier sentence and receive such further psychiatric care and treatment, as necessary, rather than returned to Whiting for those purposes. Claiming that the court had no jurisdiction to enter any order with respect to his earlier sentence, which allegedly would have been completed in a hospital setting rather than a prison had the court not ordered his immediate imprisonment after sentencing, the defendant seeks to correct the court's alleged error by crediting all time that he improperly spent in prison completing his earlier sentence as presentence jail credit toward his consecutive sentence, thereby advancing his release date on that sentence by approximately eleven months. The trial court disagreed, denying that portion of the defendant's motion to correct, in which he made the foregoing argument, and dismissing his parallel claim that the pretrial jail time credit to which he allegedly was entitled had not properly been credited toward his sentence. On this appeal, we affirm all aspects of the trial court's challenged rulings.")

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

AC40465 - Costello v. Goldstein & Peck, P.C. ("The plaintiffs, James T. Costello and Dorothy Smulley Costello, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered subsequent to its granting of the motion to strike the second amended complaint filed by the defendants, Goldstein & Peck, P.C. (law firm), William J. Kupinse, Jr., and Andrew M. McPherson. The plaintiffs claim that the court (1) improperly granted the defendants' motion to strike, (2) failed to consider alternatives to striking the complaint, and (3) improperly denied the plaintiffs' claim for costs pursuant to General Statutes § 52-243. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC40787 - Coppedge v. Travis (Personal injury; "The defendant dog owner, Curtis Travis, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, Camila Coppedge, in this tort action, commenced pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 22-357, commonly known as the dog bite statute. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) '[t]he evidence supports a finding that . . . § 22-357 does not apply as the dog's conduct was innocent,' and (2) '[t]he evidence does not support a finding of proximate cause.' We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC40405 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Gonzalez ("The defendant William Gonzalez appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by concluding that he had failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the mortgage broker was an agent or employee of the original mortgagee and concluding, on that basis, that he had failed to prove any of his special defenses, all of which were based on the alleged conduct of the broker. The defendant further claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that he had failed to sustain his burden of proving that the mortgage was unconscionable. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40408 - People's United Bank, National Assn. v. Purcell ("The defendant Kevin Purcell appeals following the trial court's denial of his motion to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale and to dismiss the action. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court should have dismissed the action because it lacked personal jurisdiction over him due to insufficient service of process on him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40692 - Maria G. v. Commissioner of Children & Families (Whether trial court properly concluded that foreign court's judgment was not required to be enforced as matter of comity; "The petitioner, Maria G., appeals from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the respondent, the Commissioner of Children and Families, on the petitioner's writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of the minor child, Santiago. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erroneously failed to credit a Guatemalan court's decree, which purportedly granted her parental guardianship rights over, and custody of, Santiago, when the court concluded that (1) public policy prohibited recognition of the decree because it was premised on a false birth certificate, and (2) the decree was obtained without notice to the respondent. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

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

Thursday, January 24th

• Danbury Law Library will be open until 3:30 p.m.

Friday, January 25th

• Danbury Law Library will be closed.
• Rockville Law Library will open at 2:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The 2019 edition of our research guide on Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim and Setoff to a Civil Complainthas been posted to our research guides webpage.

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 30, for January 22, 2019 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

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

The Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following report:

Fines for Violating Motor Vehicle Laws in Work Zones - 2019-R-0004
Discuss the fines for violating Connecticut motor vehicle laws in a work zone.

See also our CT Law About - Criminal Penalties page.

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

AC40652 - Hodges v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel, Donald J. Cretella, Jr., rendered ineffective assistance and (2) abused its discretion by precluding the petitioner’s expert from testifying at the habeas trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court… The petitioner argues that the court improperly concluded that Cretella did not perform deficiently by declining to consult with and retain an expert to provide testimony on video forensics. Specifically, the petitioner argues that the quality of the surveillance video was poor and that an expert could explain how anomalies within the video footage could make it falsely appear as if an item, such as a firearm, were present. We are not persuaded.")

AC40520 - Buie v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly determined that he had received effective assistance from his prior habeas counsel. We conclude that the court properly determined that the petitioner failed to establish prejudice as a result of the allegedly deficient performance of his prior habeas counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

SC19898 - Ventura v. East Haven (Negligence; "The plaintiff, Thomas Ventura, commenced this action against the named defendant, the town of East Haven, seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he was struck by an unregistered vehicle driven by a third party, Vladimir Trnka. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant is liable for those damages because he would not have incurred them if Jeffrey R. Strand, an East Haven police officer who had been dispatched to respond to an incident involving Trnka shortly before he was struck, had directed that Trnka's vehicle be towed in accordance with certain police department tow rules. According to the plaintiff, those rules require the towing of unregistered vehicles like Trnka’s. Following a trial, the jury rejected the defendant's claim of governmental immunity, finding that Strand had a ministerial duty under those tow rules to have had Trnka’s vehicle towed, and awarded the plaintiff $12,200,000 in damages. The trial court thereafter granted in part the defendant's motion for remittitur and reduced the verdict to $6,200,000. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the defendant was immune from suit because its tow rules did not impose on Strand a clear ministerial duty to tow Trnka’s vehicle. See Ventura v. East Haven, 170 Conn. App. 388, 414–15, 154 A.3d 1020 (2017). We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that governmental immunity barred the plaintiff’s action. Ventura v. East Haven, 325 Conn. 905, 156 A.3d 537 (2017). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court because we agree that the plaintiff's action is foreclosed by governmental immunity.")

AC40799 - Anderson v. Dike (Personal injury; "The plaintiff, Francis Anderson, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Charles Dike, Thomas Ward-McKinley, Steve Lazrove and Heather Madison. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, (2) denied his motion for a jury trial and (3) denied his motions for the appointment of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC40789 - Kirwan v. Kirwan ("On appeal, the defendant raises various repetitive and overlapping claims of error, which this court has distilled into the three inclusive issues addressed in this opinion. The core of the defendant's claims are that the court erred in (1) ordering him to pay 75 percent of his children's private middle school tuition for the 2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2017–2018 academic years, because their enrollment in the school was not decided pursuant to the parties' parenting plan, (2) ordering him to pay for a portion of the 2015–2016 school year tuition that was incurred before October 23, 2015, the date of the dissolution, and (3) finding him in contempt. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40450 - Watson Real Estate, LLC v. Woodland Ridge, LLC ("This action arises out of an escrow agreement entered into by the parties in conjunction with the purchase of a lot in a residential subdivision owned by the defendant Woodland Ridge, LLC. The plaintiff, Watson Real Estate, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a bench trial, in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, as well as from the court's subsequent order denying the plaintiff's request for leave to amend its revised complaint. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court (1) improperly failed to find that there was a meeting of the minds between the parties as to the specifications of the common driveway that the defendant was required, under the escrow agreement, to install within the subdivision, (2) improperly failed to find that the defendant breached the escrow agreement by not reimbursing the plaintiff for costs it incurred in relation to certain work that the defendant was required under the agreement to complete, and (3) abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request for leave to amend its revised complaint to conform to the evidence adduced at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC39597 - State v. Williams (Attempt to commit home invasion; manslaughter in first degree; "The defendant, DaQuan D. Williams, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit home invasion in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-100aa (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support this conviction because the state failed to prove that he attempted to enter the apartment in which Jouleigh Clemente was located, and the state failed to present evidence that he had the specific intent to seriously injure Clemente. We reverse the judgment of conviction on this count.")

AC41228 - State v. Santiago (Murder; "The defendant, Victor Santiago, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered against him after a jury trial on the charge of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence (1) his wife's statement to the police as a prior consistent statement and (2) her testimony of uncharged misconduct relating to domestic violence perpetrated by the defendant. Additionally, the defendant claims that the prosecutor's alleged violations of the court's order limiting the scope of uncharged misconduct evidence constituted prosecutorial impropriety that deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. Alternatively, the defendant claims that the alleged prosecutorial impropriety warrants the exercise of this court's supervisory authority to award him a new trial, based on similar conduct by the prosecutor in at least one other trial. We affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

AC40597 - Boucher v. Saint Francis GI Endoscopy, LLC ("In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff, Darlene Boucher, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of her employer, the defendant, Saint Francis GI Endoscopy, LLC, on the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that her employer retaliated against her when she complained about being sexually harassed by a coworker. See General Statutes § 46a-60 (b) (4). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to her retaliation claim. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40130 - Fitzgerald v. Bridgeport ("The defendant Manuel Cotto appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his counterclaim and in favor of the plaintiffs. The court struck Cotto's name from the eligibility list for promotion to police captain after concluding that Cotto had not met the eligibility requirements and should not have been allowed to take the captain examination. On appeal, Cotto claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed his counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and (2) determined that a twenty-second lieutenant position was not established as required pursuant to § 206 (d) of the charter of the city of Bridgeport. He claims in the alternative that even if the trial court properly determined that the twenty-second lieutenant position was not established as required, the court's conclusion that he was ineligible to take the captain examination constituted an improper sanction of an illegal appointment. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions