SC20624 - In re Ivory W. ("The respondent claims that the trial court's denial of her motion for a continuance violated her due process right to present a defense to the termination of her parental rights under the federal and state constitutions. The respondent further claims that, if this court determines that the denial of her motion for a continuance was constitutional, the denial was an abuse of discretion. Finally, the respondent claims that, if this court determines that the denial of her motion for a continuance was neither unconstitutional nor an abuse of discretion, this court should exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to direct our trial courts to grant motions for a continuance of termination of parental rights proceedings whenever related criminal proceedings against the parent are pending. We reject the respondent's claims and affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

Please note: Bridgeport Law Library is closed until further notice. Stamford Law Library hours are 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. until further notice.

See our regularly scheduled hours.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 39, for March 29, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 342: Connecticut Reports (Pages 538 - 691)
• Volume 342: Orders (Pages 908 - 911)
• Volume 342: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 211: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 390 - 527)
• Volume 211: 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

SC20368 - State v. Gray (Felony murder; attempt to commit robbery first degree; conspiracy to commit robbery first degree; carrying pistol without permit; whether the detention of witnesses for trial constitutes coercion; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his federal due process rights by detaining three eyewitnesses to secure their attendance at trial because those detentions resulted in coerced and involuntary testimony in the state’s favor, and (2) abused its discretion by permitting the prosecutor to read both inconsistent and consistent passages from the witnesses’ grand jury transcripts to the jury for substantive purposes 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). We conclude that (1) with respect to the defendant’s first claim, which is unpreserved, he has not established a due process violation under the third prong of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R. 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), and (2) the trial court’s Whelan ruling was not an abuse of its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Concurrence

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

The 2022 edition of our research guide on Torts of Minors in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides webpage.

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

AC43738 - Gleason v. Durden (“This case arises out of a dispute between siblings over the disposition of various parcels of real property they acquired from their mother and an uncle. The defendants, Marcella Durden and her husband, Andrew Durden, appeal from the judgment of the trial court finding in favor of the plaintiff, John Gleason, Marcella's brother, on his unjust enrichment claim as to a property the defendants acquired from the plaintiff and another brother, Charles Gleason. Specifically, the defendants claim that the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff on his unjust enrichment claim because (1) the claim was time barred, (2) the court expressly found that the defendants never engaged in unjust or inequitable conduct, and (3) the agreement upon which the court based its judgment was not sufficiently definitive to support a claim of unjust enrichment and was never alleged in the plaintiff's complaint as a basis for recovery. The defendants further claim that the court erred in rendering judgment for Charles on the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim because Charles was never an adverse party to the defendants and never asserted such a claim against them. With respect to the defendants' appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court.

The plaintiff cross appeals from the judgment of the court rendered in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff's remaining claims. Although the plaintiff's claim on his cross appeal is not entirely clear, he essentially argues that the court should have found that the defendants breached their obligations created by a "confidential relationship" that existed between the parties, awarded him additional damages arising from that breach, and ordered an accounting between the parties. As to the plaintiff's cross appeal, we affirm the court's judgment.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44244 - Sitar v. Syferlock Technology Corp. (“The plaintiffs, Paul Sitar and Joseph Stage, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, following a court trial, insofar as the court concluded that they were not entitled to double damages and attorney's fees and declined to award prejudgment interest on the amounts awarded to them. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court (1) erred in finding that there was no bad faith, arbitrariness, or unreasonableness on the part of the defendant, Syferlock Technology Corporation, to support an award of double damages and attorney's fees with respect to the plaintiffs' claims for failure to pay wages pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72,and (2) abused its discretion in not awarding prejudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a (a). We conclude that the record is inadequate for our review, and, accordingly, we decline to review the plaintiffs' claims and, thus, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20496 - State v. Taveras (Breach of peace at a preschool; “In this certified appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the evidence contained in the record precluded application of the true threats exception and, as a result, improperly reversed the judgments of the trial court revoking the defendant’s probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32 on the basis of that evidence. The defendant, in response, argues that the Appellate Court’s analysis on the point was sound, and that his conduct on the day of the incident in question warrants first amendment protection. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the state and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• First Concurrence
• Second Concurrence

AC43765 - State v. Goode (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by (1) denying his request for new counsel, (2) requiring him to remain shackled in the courtroom during his trial, and (3) not inquiring into a potential conflict of interest with his counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

SC20556 - Dorfman v. Smith ("This appeal requires that we examine the scope of the litigation privilege, which provides absolute immunity from suit, in relation to alleged misconduct by an insurance company. The plaintiff, Tamara Dorfman, appeals from that part of the trial court's judgment dismissing her claims against the defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA); General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.; based on a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Statutes § 38a-815 et seq. The trial court dismissed these claims on the ground that the litigation privilege deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. The plaintiff argues that, because these claims were the functional equivalent of claims for vexatious litigation, the litigation privilege did not apply. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

SC20556 Concurrence & Dissent - Dorfman v. Smith

AC43956 - Pizzoferrato v. Community Renewal Team, Inc. ("The plaintiff, Gail Pizzoferrato, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to open and vacate the judgment of the court rendered in favor of the defendant, Community Renewal Team, Inc., in accordance with a decision of an arbitrator that resulted from court-annexed arbitration.On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied her motion because the language of both General Statutes § 52-549z and Practice Book § 23-66 require that a decision of an arbitrator be sent to the parties both electronically and by mail before it can become a judgment of the court. Because notice of the arbitrator's decision was never sent to the parties or their counsel by mail in the present case, the plaintiff argues that the judgment of the court, rendered on the basis of the arbitrator's decision, should be vacated. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC43448 - Peerless Realty, Inc. v. Stamford ("This case involves a dispute over the remedies available to a taxpayer for reimbursement of property taxes levied on an apartment building following the tax assessor's erroneous recordation, dating back to 1993, of the property's acreage. The plaintiff property owner, Peerless Realty, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, the city of Stamford (city) and the Stamford tax assessor, Gregory Stackpole. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in rendering summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist and because the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43674 - Dolan v. Dolan (Dissolution of marriage; claim that trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion for modification; claim that trial court abused its discretion in awarding plaintiff attorney's fees to defend appeal; "In this dissolution matter, the defendant, Russell J. Dolan, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting two postjudgment motions filed by the plaintiff, Christina Dolan. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's (1) motion for modification and (2) motion for appellate attorney's fees. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC44392 - Ingram v. Ingram (Dissolution of marriage; whether trial court properly granted postdissolution motion for modification of custody seeking to relocate parties' minor child; whether trial court applied criteria of applicable statute (§ 46b-56d) in reaching its determination; "The defendant, Brian J. Ingram, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postdissolution motion filed by the plaintiff, Christina Ingram, for modification of custody, seeking to relocate the parties' minor child to Poughkeepsie, New York. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 38, for March 22, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 342: Connecticut Reports (Pages 445 - 537)
• Volume 342: Orders (Pages 903 - 907)
• Volume 342: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 211: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 275 - 389)
• Volume 211: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
• Volume 211: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

SC20376 - State v. Daniels (Intentional manslaughter, manslaughter in the first degree/reckless manslaughter and misconduct with a motor vehicle/criminally negligent operation), "On appeal to this court, the state argues that the Appellate Court improperly ordered a new trial on all three charges rather than reinstating the defendant’s intentional manslaughter conviction. We agree with the state and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

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

The 2022 edition of Alimony in Connecticut has been added to our research guides web page. This update includes citations to recent alimony case law.

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

AC42790, AC42791 - Bongiorno v. J & G Realty, LLC (“In Docket No. AC 42790, Marie claims that the trial court erred by (1) disposing of her claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Frank and Maurice on the basis of res judicata and (2) finding that she lacked standing to bring claims in her own name for breach of fiduciary duty. We dismiss Marie's appeal as moot. In Docket No. AC 42791, Bridjay claims that (1) the trial court erred by failing to shift the burden to Frank and Maurice to prove good faith and fair dealing on her breach of fiduciary duty claims and (2) this court should exercise its supervisory authority to reverse the judgment of the trial court as to her claims of oppression of a minority member. In regard to her breach of fiduciary duty claims, we dismiss Bridjay's appeal as moot, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43421 - Kellogg v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. ("The defendant, Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion for summary judgment on the second revised and amended complaint filed by the plaintiff, Sally Kellogg, in which she raised claims of breach of contract, a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., arising from a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Statutes § 38a-815 et seq., and promissory estoppel. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied its motion for summary judgment because (1) the breach of contract claim was barred pursuant to (a) the doctrine of res judicata and (b) the suit limitation provision of a "restorationist" property insurance policy issued by the defendant, (2) the CUTPA/CUIPA claim (a) was barred pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g (f), the applicable statute of limitations, and (b) failed as a matter of law, and (3) the promissory estoppel claim (a) was barred pursuant to the suit limitation provision of the policy and (b) failed as a matter of law. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20332 - State v. Jose A. B. (Three counts of sexual assault or attempt to commit sexual assault and two counts of risk of injury to a child; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly overruled his Batson3 objection to the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges to two venirepersons, and (2) his conviction of two counts of risk of injury to a child violates his right to be free from double jeopardy. We disagree, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC44187 - Olorunfunmi v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner, a Nigerian citizen, claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal because his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated due to the failure of his trial counsel to advise him, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), that a plea of guilty to larceny in the second degree would almost certainly result in his deportation to Nigeria, which, in fact, occurred following his plea to that offense and subsequent sentencing. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification, and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.”)

AC44047 - Ortiz v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and erred in its determination that he failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under General Statutes § 52-470 (e). Our examination of the record and briefs and consideration of the oral arguments of the parties persuades us that the habeas court acted properly and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.”)

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

AC44080 - Buehler v. Buehler (Dissolution of marriage; claim that trial court misconstrued statute ((Rev. to 2015) § 46b-56c (d)) in ordering plaintiff to pay portion of his child's postsecondary education expenses despite his lack of participation in or agreement on which educational institution child attended; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) misconstrued and misapplied § 46b-56c (d) when it entered the support order, (2) improperly predicated the support order on factual findings made by the dissolution court with respect to the breakdown of the parties' marriage, (3) improperly considered the nature of the plaintiff's relationship with the parties' eldest daughter, Hannah, and (4) erroneously found that the defendant attempted to include him in Hannah's college selection process. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

Please note: Bridgeport Law Library is closed until further notice. Stamford Law Library hours are 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. until further notice.

See our regularly scheduled hours.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices