AC44120 - In re November H. (Connecticut General Statute § 17a-112 (j) (3); whether father lacked normal and healthy parent-child bond with child; “On appeal, the respondent claims that (1) the court made internally inconsistent statements regarding his parent-child relationship with November, (2) there was insufficient evidence supporting the court’s determination that he failed to sufficiently rehabilitate, (3) as a matter of law, the court, in terminating his parental rights, improperly relied on its finding that additional time was necessary for him and November to develop a ‘‘normal and healthy’’ parent-child relationship when the petitioner and November’s mother, Natachia G., interfered with his ability to develop such a relationship, and (4) the court improperly compared him to November’s foster parent in the adjudicatory part of its decision. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20106 - State v. Angel M. (Sentencing; Whether Defendant Penalized for Maintaining his Innocence at Sentencing Hearing; Whether Consideration of Defendant's Refusal to Admit Guilt Violates Right Against Self-Incrimination. "Following a jury trial, the defendant, Angel M., was convicted of sexually assaulting the twelve year old daughter of his romantic partner and sentenced to a total effective prison term of thirty-three years. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, among other things, that the trial court had violated his right to due process at sentencing by penalizing him for refusing to apologize for his criminal misconduct. See State v. Angel M., 180 Conn. App. 250,253, 286, 183 A.3d 636 (2018). According to the defendant, who maintained his innocence both at trial and at the time of sentencing, the trial court’s enhancement of his sentence for that reason was fundamentally unfair because it contravened his constitutional right against self-incrimination insofar as any such apology necessarily would have required him to admit guilt. See id., 286–88. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s claim, concluding that the record did not support his contention that the trial court had increased his sentence because of his unwillingness to issue an apology to the victims; see id., 290–91; and we granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal. See State v. Angel M., 328 Conn. 931, 182 A.3d 1192 (2018). We agree with the Appellate Court and, accordingly, affirm its judgment.")

• SC20106 Concurrence - State v. Angel M.

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

AC42140 - Figueroa v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred by concluding that (1) he failed to sustain his burden of establishing prejudice caused by his trial counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction, (2) he failed to sustain his burden of establishing prejudice caused by his appellate counsel’s failure to argue on direct appeal that his constitutional right to a trial by jury was violated, and (3) his claim that his constitutional right to a trial by jury was violated was procedurally defaulted. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC43027 - Wittman v. Intense Movers, Inc. (Corporate dissolution; breach of fiduciary duty; notice to purchase shares of company pursuant to statute (§ 33-900 (b)); motion to enforce settlement agreement; "The self-represented defendants, Alexander Leute and William R. Leute III, appeal from the judgment of the trial court enforcing a signed memorandum of understanding as supplemented by an unsigned settlement document with its attachments (jointly, settlement agreement) made between the defendants and the plaintiffs, Matthew Wittman and Carol Wittman, regarding the defendants' purchase of the plaintiffs' shares of stock in Intense Movers, Inc. (company). On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement because the defendants' ability to obtain third-party financing to fund the purchase of the plaintiffs' shares was a contingency of the settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

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

Comparison of Property Tax Structures in Select States - 2020-R-0354 - provides a brief comparison of the property tax structures in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.

Judicial Selection Process - 2020-R-0322 - summarizes the judicial selection process. (This report expands and updates OLR Report 2001-R-0130.)

Nursing Home Transparency - 2020-R-0356 - describes provisions in PA 14-55, An Act Improving Transparency of Nursing Home Operations, concerning (1) cost reporting and (2) the Nursing Home Financial Advisory Committee.

Connecticut's Environmental Justice Law - 2020-R-0286 - summarizes Connecticut’s environmental justice law (CGS § 22a-20a). It updates OLR Report 2017-R-0316 to reflect changes made by PA 20-6, Sept. Sp. Sess..

Food Insecurity in Connecticut - 2020-R-0329 - provides general information on food insecurity nationally and in Connecticut and policy options to help residents obtain food during the COVID-19 pandemic that other states have implemented or may be considering.

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 26, for December 29, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 745 - 816)
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 985 - 985)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 202: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 44 - 54)
• Volume 202: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
• Notice Publishing Deadlines

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

The 2020 edition of our research guide on Motion for Review has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

AC42948 - LaPierre v. Mandell & Blau, M.D.'s, P.C. ("The plaintiff, Joseph H. LaPierre III, successor executor of the estate of Isabella LaPierre (decedent), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action against the defendants, Mandell & Blau, M.D.'s, P.C., doing business as Open MRI of Connecticut, and physicians Alisa Siegfeld, Neal D. Barkoff and Richard Glisson, for lack of personal jurisdiction based on his failure to attach to his complaint an opinion letter from a similar health care provider as required by General Statutes § 52-190a. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in its determination because the complaint sounded in ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice, and therefore was outside the scope of § 52-190a.We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

The 2020 edition of our research guide on Modification of Judgments in Family Matters has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 25, for December 22, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 335: Orders (Pages 982 - 984)
• Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 201: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 748 - 881)
• Volume 201: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 908)
• Volume 201: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 202: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 44)
• Volume 202: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
• Notice Publishing Deadlines

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

The 2020 edition of our research guide on Alienation of Affection Suits in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides webpage.

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

The 2020 edition of our research guide on Encroachment by an Adjoining Landowner in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides webpage.

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

SC20272 - State v. Stephenson (burglary in the third degree; attempted tampering with physical evidence; attempted arson in the second degree; "The state, on the granting of certification, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court convicting the defendant, Joseph A. Stephenson, of the crimes of burglary in the third degree, attempt to commit tampering with physical evidence, and attempt to commit arson in the second degree in connection with a break-in at the Superior Court for the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, geographical area number twenty, which is located in Norwalk. See State v. Stephenson, 187 Conn. App. 20, 39, 201 A.3d 427 (2019). The state claims, inter alia, that the Appellate Court improperly addressed an issue of evidentiary sufficiency sua sponte without calling for supplemental briefing as required by Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123, 84 A.3d 840 (2014) (Blumberg). We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

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

AC42667 - Village Mortgage Co. v. Garbus ("In this declaratory judgment action, the defendants, Ronald Garbus and Georganne Garbus, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, declaring that the defendants are not lawful stockholders of the plaintiff, Village Mortgage Company. The defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff's cause of action is akin to an equitable claim for injunctive relief subject to the doctrine of laches, rather than a legal claim for tortious financial misconduct subject to the statute of limitations, specifically General Statutes § 52-577. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC42280 - Featherston v. Katchko & Son Construction Services, Inc. ("The defendants, Katchko & Son Construction Services, Inc. (Son Singular), and Katchko & Sons Construction Services, Inc. (Sons Plural), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Peter Featherston. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to amend his second revised complaint, (2) improperly rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on counts one and two of his second revised complaint sounding in violations of the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq., and (3) improperly rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on count three of his second revised complaint sounding in a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. We dismiss, sua sponte, the defendants' original appeal for lack of a final judgment; see part I of this opinion; and, with respect to the amended appeal, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41587 - State v. Mansfield (Breach of peace in second degree; assault of public safety personnel; plain error doctrine; "The defendant, Brian Mansfield, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of the crimes of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (1) and assault of public safety personnel in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c (a) (5). On appeal, with regard to his conviction of breach of the peace, the defendant "challenges the sufficiency of the state's evidence to prove the theory of liability for which he was prosecuted: that he . . . engaged in tumultuous behavior"; (emphasis omitted); claims that "[t]he prosecution's theory of criminal liability rendered § 53a-181 (a) (1) unconstitutionally vague as applied," and that the trial court's instruction on the definition of "tumultuous behavior" misled the jury. With regard to his conviction of assault of public safety personnel, the defendant claims that "[t]he state offered insufficient evidence to prove that [the] [o]fficer . . . was acting lawfully in the performance of his official duties," and that "[t]he trial court did not respond adequately to the jury's request . . . to be instructed on the law governing police discretion to issue and serve a summons [on] an individual who has not been arrested first." We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC42456 - State v. Qayyum (Conspiracy to sell narcotics; possession of narcotics with intent to sell; "The defendant, Muhammad A. Qayyum, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of conspiracy to sell narcotics in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 21a-277 (a) and two counts of possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of § 21a-277 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his due process rights by shifting the burdens of proof and persuasion to him to prove that he had a legitimate source of income and (2) erred by allowing impermissible expert opinion testimony regarding his intent to sell narcotics. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41482 - State v. Ervin B. (Threatening in second degree; "The defendant, Ervin B., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 (a) (1). The defendant claims on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of threatening in the second degree. We agree with the defendant's insufficiency of the evidence claim and therefore remand the case to the trial court with direction to render a judgment of acquittal.")

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

AC42276 - Phillips v. Hebron ("The minor plaintiff, Alexander M. Phillips, appeals from the trial court's decision granting the motion of the defendants, the town of Hebron (town), the Hebron Board of Education (board), and eight of the board's employees, to dismiss counts one through twenty of the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We dismiss the appeal with respect to counts two through six, eight, ten, twelve through sixteen, eighteen, and twenty for lack of a final judgment. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC42176 - Newtown v. Ostrosky ("This is an appeal from a denial of a motion to reargue and for reconsideration filed by the defendant Scott E. Ostrosky from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Newtown. On appeal, the defendant claims that the judgment should be opened and vacated because (1) the default that was entered by the court clerk was invalid and cannot serve as the basis for the foreclosure judgment and (2) the motion for a judgment of foreclosure was filed prematurely by the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC42176 Appendix - Newtown v. Ostrosky

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42932 Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction (Good cause standard; "The petitioner claims on appeal that the habeas court improperly determined that his purported ignorance of the filing deadline set forth in § 52-470 (d) (1) and his lack of meaningful access to a law library during some portions of his term of incarceration were insufficient to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court."

...

"The petitioner asserted that, because of his lack of access to legal resources during segregation and lockdown and his former habeas counsel’s failure to inform him of the time limitations of § 52-470, he was unaware of the deadline for filing his second habeas petition, and this lack of knowledge necessarily established ‘good cause’ for any delay.")

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

SC20420 - Doe v. Rackliffe ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the extended statute of limitations in General Statutes § 52-577d applies to negligence claims for personal injuries brought against the alleged perpetrator of a sexual assault. The seven plaintiffs in these six consolidated cases appeal from the decision of the trial court rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendant, William J. Forbes, as executor of the estate of Robert Rackliffe, on the ground that the plaintiffs' negligence claims were time barred. The plaintiffs, each of whom were minors at the time of the alleged assaults, contend that the trial court improperly applied the general negligence statute of limitations in General Statutes § 52-584 to their claims alleging medical negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress instead of the extended limitation period set forth in § 52-577d. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law