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.
AC44162 - Quint v.
Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance; “On appeal, the petitioner
asserts that the record establishes that his counsel failed (1) to meaningfully
communicate the state’s plea offer and (2) to ensure that the petitioner would
receive presentence jail credit for the time that he was incarcerated between
his March 17, 2017 sentencing in the Superior Court in the judicial district of
New Haven at Meriden (Meriden) and his April 10, 2017 sentencing in the
Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield (Bridgeport). We affirm
the judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC44379 - Tolland Meetinghouse Commons, LLC v. CXF Tolland, LLC ("The present appeal arises out of an action alleging breach of a commercial lease agreement against the defendant CXF Tolland, LLC (Cardio Express), and breach of a guaranty agreement against the defendant Peter A. Rusconi. Rusconi appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Tolland Meetinghouse Commons, LLC (Tolland Meetinghouse), granting Tolland Meetinghouse's motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43872 - Fairlake Capital, LLC v. Lathouris ("The defendants, Peter Lathouris and Patricia Spanos Lathouris, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Fairlake Capital, LLC. The defendants claim that the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff's breach of guaranty claims against them are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43519 - O'Rourke v. Dept. of Labor (Administrative appeal; labor law; "In this administrative appeal, the plaintiff, Joan O'Rourke, appeals from the decision of the Superior Court, affirming the dismissal of her hybrid action against the defendant AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Council 4, Local 2663 (union) and the defendant Department of Children and Families (department) by the Department of Labor, State Board of Labor Relations (board), a codefendant in this case. Following the termination of the plaintiff's employment with the department, the union filed a grievance on her behalf and represented her in an arbitration proceeding. After the arbitrator determined that the department had just cause to terminate the plaintiff's employment, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the board and, ultimately, appealed the decision of the board to the Superior Court. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Superior Court improperly determined that substantial evidence supported the findings of the board and that the board reasonably concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the union breached its duty of fair representation. The plaintiff specifically contends that the union breached its duty of fair representation because it failed to make two particular legal arguments to the arbitrator. We affirm the decision of the Superior Court.")
AC43826 - Epright v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Jacqueline Epright, appeals from the trial court's granting of the motion to disqualify James W. Depuy as an expert witness, filed by the defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as a motion for order to show cause. Because such an interlocutory order does not satisfy either prong of the test set forth in State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983), and, therefore, is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.")
AC44355 - State v. Daniel M. (Sexual assault in fourth degree; risk of injury to child; "The defendant, Daniel M., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (2) and two 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 erred in admitting evidence of uncharged prior misconduct. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction.")
AC44386 - L. D. v. G. T. ("The defendant, G. T., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application of the plaintiff, L. D., for relief from abuse and issuing a domestic violence order of protection pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 46b-15. On appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the court abused its discretion by precluding him from cross-examining the plaintiff during the hearing on the plaintiff's application for relief from abuse. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
SC20586 - Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tenn ("The question in this case is whether the plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), can use a plea of nolo contendere entered by the named defendant, Donte Tenn, to trigger a criminal acts exclusion in a homeowners insurance policy governed by Connecticut law. Allstate commenced the present action against Tenn and another defendant, Tailan Moscaritolo, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking a judgment declaring that it has no contractual duty either to defend or to indemnify Tenn in a civil action brought against Tenn by Moscaritolo in Connecticut Superior Court. Allstate subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action, arguing that Tenn’s plea of nolo contendere relieved it of its duty both to defend and to indemnify him as a matter of law. The parties agreed that a ruling on Allstate’s motion with respect to indemnification would be premature, and, as a result, the District Court denied Allstate’s motion with respect to that issue without prejudice. The only remaining question, which the District Court, in turn, certified to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199b (d) and Practice Book § 82-1, is whether Tenn’s plea of nolo contendere relieved Allstate of its duty to defend by triggering the policy’s criminal acts exclusion as a matter of law. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Tenn’s plea of nolo contendere is inadmissible to prove the occurrence of a criminal act and, therefore, cannot be used to trigger the policy’s criminal acts exclusion.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 34, for February 22, 2022 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 341 Conn. Replacement Pages 789 - 790
- Volume 341: Connecticut Reports (Pages 815 - 852)
- Volume 341: Orders (Pages 901 - 904)
- Volume 341: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 342: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 128)
- Volume 342: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 210: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 718 - 801)
- Volume 210: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 907)
- Volume 210: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC44329 - National Bank Trust v. Yurov ("In this action stemming from the alleged fraud against the plaintiff, National Bank Trust, by the defendant Sergey Belyaev, the defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to open and dismiss or stay the enforcement of a certified foreign judgment filed by the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the certified judgment was a foreign judgment as defined by General Statutes § 50a-31 (2) because it did not grant the recovery of a sum of money; (2) concluded that the certification required by General Statutes § 52-605 (a) may be signed by counsel rather than the judgment creditor; and (3) refused to open the judgment when the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant required that all disputes be resolved in accordance with Russian law in Russian courts. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC44415 - Pickard v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services ("In this special statutory proceeding, the plaintiff, Regina Pickard, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's application to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-418, 52-420, and 52-422. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her application to vacate an arbitration award. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")
AC44348 - Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC (Quiet title; "This appeal is the latest episode in what our Supreme Court has described as 'a nearly century old dispute among neighbors in a housing development along the Long Island Sound (sound) over access to the shore.' Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC, 320 Conn. 146, 148, 129 A.3d 677 (2016). The defendant Beachcroft, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court summarily enforcing a settlement agreement entered on the record on the eve of trial. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) committed error in making a finding that two intervening defendants, the McBurneys, were not parties to the settlement agreement, and (2) improperly altered or omitted material terms of the settlement agreement in summarily enforcing the settlement agreement. We reverse the judgment of the trial court only insofar as the court's decision summarily enforcing the settlement agreement omitted certain terms of the settlement agreement, and we affirm the judgment in all other respects.")
AC44905 - Stratford v. 500 North Avenue, LLC (Foreclosure of municipal tax liens; "This is an appeal by the defendant 500 North Avenue, LLC, from a judgment of foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Stratford. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the defendant lacks standing to maintain the appeal because it no longer owns the property at issue and, therefore, is not aggrieved by the judgment. Although the defendant concedes that it has no ownership interest in the property, it opposes the motion on the ground that it is aggrieved by the possible collateral consequences of the judgment. Specifically, the defendant argues that the judgment establishes its underlying tax obligations to the plaintiff and could be used by the plaintiff to establish the defendant's liability in a future, independent action by the plaintiff to collect unpaid taxes not satisfied by a judgment in this case. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the defendant is not aggrieved by the judgment and, therefore, lacks standing to pursue this appeal. As a result, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")
SC20560 - 1st Alliance Lending, LLC v. Dept. of Banking (Administrative appeal; Mortgage lender license revocation; whether defendant had statutory discretion to suspend plaintiff's license and, if so, whether defendant actually and lawfully exercised that discretion; whether defendant was estopped from suspending plaintiff's license; "This appeal requires us to consider, for the first time, the statutory scheme governing the suspension and revocation of a mortgage lender's license. The plaintiff, 1st Alliance Lending, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from the decision of the defendant Jorge Perez, the commissioner of banking, revoking the plaintiff's license to serve as a mortgage lender in the state. The principal issue on appeal is whether General Statutes § 36a-492 and the relevant statutory scheme granted the commissioner the legal authority to suspend and revoke the plaintiff's mortgage lender license. We conclude that they did and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Please note: Bridgeport Law Library is closed until further notice.
Wednesday, February 16th
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library opens at 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 17th
- Middletown Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
Friday, February 18th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- Middletown Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
Monday, February 21st
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.
See our regularly scheduled hours.
The Office of Legislative Research has issued a report titled Statutory CUTPA Violations. The description states that "[t]his report lists the state’s statutory CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act) violations. It
provides each violation’s statutory reference (or the public act creating the violation) and a brief
description of the violation." The report further states that "[t]here are two types of CUTPA violations. The first is judicially determined, where a court decides if
an action violated the law. The second is a per se violation, which is a specific statutorily prohibited
action that automatically constitutes a CUTPA violation."
For further CUTPA research, each of our law libraries owns the following titles:
To find Connecticut treatises by subject, our law libraries make available a Connecticut Treatise Index.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 33, for February 15, 2022 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 341: Connecticut Reports (Pages 508 - 814)
- Volume 341: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 210: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 581 - 718)
- Volume 210: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 906)
- Volume 210: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices