AC46009 - Martin v. Todd Arthurs Co. (“The defendant, Todd Arthurs Company, Inc., doing business as Alpine Home Air Products, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement between it and the self-represented plaintiff, Timothy Martin, and denying its motion to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court incorrectly determined that the parties reached an enforceable settlement agreement, and (2) the court abused its discretion in declining to enforce a forum selection clause when it denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20628 - State v. Connecticut State University Organization of Administrative Faculty, AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2836, AFL-CIO (“This case presents the question of whether the public policy of this state is violated by an arbitration award ordering the reinstatement of a public sector employee whose employment was terminated after being arrested and charged with crimes involving off-duty conduct. The defendant, the Connecticut State University Organization of Administrative Faculty, AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2836, AFL-CIO (union), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the court’s denial of the union’s motion to confirm an arbitration award that reinstated the grievant, a union member, to his employment at Central Connecticut State University (university). The court denied the union’s motion to confirm the award, granted an application to vacate the award filed by the plaintiff, the state of Connecticut (state), and rendered judgment thereon, after concluding that the award violated public policy. We disagree that the arbitration award, which reinstated the grievant, violated an explicit, well-defined and dominant public policy and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

SC20628 Dissent - State v. Connecticut State University Organization of Administrative Faculty, AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2836, AFL-CIO

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45862 - DeCicco v. Dynata, LLC ("The plaintiffs, Attorney Joseph DeCicco, administrator of the estates of twenty-nine Philippine citizens, Jehmar Bongcayao, Mostes B. Castillo, Sylvester B. Celades, Guidhavio C. Garzon, Jexter D. Generales, and Cecilline Sismar, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendants, Dynata, LLC (Dynata), Christopher Mark Fanning, and David Ian Weatherseed, to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court (1) applied the wrong test to determine whether the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum, and (2) improperly dismissed this case on the ground of forum non conveniens. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC46249 - Fountain of Youth Church, Inc. v. Fountain ("This appeal arises from an action commenced by Fountain of Youth Church, Inc. (Church), against the defendants, Franklin L. Fountain (Fountain) and Fountain of Youth Cathedral, Inc. (Cathedral), asserting claims of fraud, constructive trust, conversion, and statutory theft. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the Church lacked standing because it failed to demonstrate that it was acting pursuant to a valid authorization when it initiated the present action against the defendants. On appeal, the Church claims that the court improperly concluded that it was not authorized to initiate the present action. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46420 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Devon Earlington Smith, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) erroneously concluded that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently withdrew a prior habeas petition with prejudice, thereby waiving his right to bring the same claims in the present petition. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

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

AC46060 - State v. Mallozzi ("The defendant, John Mallozzi, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a court trial, of fourteen counts of false statement in absentee balloting in violation of General Statutes § 9-359a and fourteen counts of forgery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-139 (a) (3).On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the court improperly permitted the state to amend its long form information in the middle of trial; (3) the court improperly denied defense counsel's request to obtain and disclose, in the middle of trial, an expert witness to rebut the state's expert witness; (4) his right to due process was violated by the lack of a requirement that the state disclose the substance of any expert opinion upon which it intended to rely at trial; (5) the court improperly denied his motion to strike the testimony of a witness, proffered by the prosecutor during the state's case-in-chief, after that same witness invoked her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination when she was called to testify by the defense; and (6) the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss on the ground of selective prosecution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC46321 - Gleason v. Atkins ("The plaintiffs, Mary Gleason and Keavy Ann Gleason, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Paul Atkins, in the plaintiffs' action to quiet title to a strip of land in the town of New Preston and to obtain damages for trespass. The disputed strip of land is the unpaved shoulder of a public highway, which extends across the defendant's property and lies to the south of a lakefront parcel (lakefront premises) that the plaintiffs have the exclusive right to use in common with other property owners who are not parties to this action. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that the lakefront premises is bounded by the unpaved shoulder rather than the paved portion of the highway. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.

Wednesday, May 29th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 12:15 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, May 30th

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.

Friday, May 31st

• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.

Monday, June 3rd

• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New Haven Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, June 4th

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, June 5th

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, June 6th

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Friday, June 7th

• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20777 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik ("The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, has spent the last decade attempting to collect from a nonparty, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), an approximately $243 million foreign judgment (English judgment) resulting from an unpaid margin call in 2008. In Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 346 Conn. 564, 294 A.3d 1 (2023), the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to pierce SHI's corporate veil and to hold the defendant Alexander Vik (Alexander) jointly and severally liable with SHI for the English judgment. Id., 568–69. While that case was pending in the trial court, the plaintiff commenced the present action against Alexander and his daughter, the defendant Caroline Vik (Caroline), alleging tortious interference with business expectancy and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., on the basis of the defendants' alleged efforts to interfere with the order of a Norwegian courtrequiring the sale of SHI's shares in a Norwegian software company in partial satisfaction of SHI's debt to the plaintiff. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that it was barred by the litigation privilege. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's decision and directed the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 214 Conn. App. 487, 511, 281 A.3d 12 (2022). We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the plaintiff's complaint was barred by the litigation privilege. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 345 Conn. 964, 964–65, 285 A.3d 388 (2022). During oral argument before this court, the defendants argued that this case was rendered moot by our decision in Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 564, which we issued after the parties had filed their briefs in this case. We conclude that the case is not moot and that the plaintiff's complaint is not barred by the litigation privilege. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 48, for May 28, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 343 Conn. Replacement Pages 925 - 926
• Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 120 - 148)
• Volume 349: Orders (Pages 909 - 911)
• Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 225: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 552 - 725)
• Volume 225: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC45509, AC45510, AC45511 - Deer v. National General Ins. Co. (“These three appeals involve two consolidated actions arising from the nonrenewal of a homeowners insurance policy. The plaintiffs, Lee Deer and Keleen Deer, appeal from the judgments of the trial court granting the motions for summary judgment filed by the defendant insurance companies, National General Insurance Company (National General) and Century-National Insurance Company (Century-National) (collectively, insurance companies), and the defendant insurance agents, Kevin Trahan and The Trahan Agency, Inc. (collectively, Trahan defendants). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motions because, on the basis of the undisputed facts, the defendants failed as a matter of law to provide them with adequate notice of the nonrenewal of their policy. We affirm the judgments of the trial court”)

AC45854 - United Cleaning & Restoration, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A. (“The plaintiff, United Cleaning & Restoration, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Bank of America, N.A., as to the plaintiff’s two count amended complaint asserting claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the court improperly (1) considered evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion that failed to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of Practice Book § 17-46 and the common law, and (2) concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiff’s claims. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC46194 - Lafferty v. Jones ("The plaintiff in error, Norman A. Pattis, a Connecticut attorney and counsel of record for the defendants, Alex Emric Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, in the underlying consolidated tort actions arising out of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, filed this writ of error challenging the order of the trial court suspending him from the practice of law for a period of six months after determining that he had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Pattis claims that the court (1) violated his procedural due process rights in initiating, sua sponte, disciplinary proceedings against him, pursuant to its inherent authority to discipline attorneys, on the basis of conduct that occurred outside of its presence, (2) improperly denied his motion to disqualify the Honorable Barbara N. Bellis from presiding over the disciplinary proceedings, (3) improperly determined that he had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and (4) imposed an arbitrary and disproportionate disciplinary order. We reject Pattis' first two claims, but we conclude that the court incorrectly found that he violated certain provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, we grant in part the writ of error and remand the matter to the court to vacate the improper findings, as well as the attendant disciplinary order, and to conduct a new hearing on sanctions before a different judge.")

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

AC45519 - State v. Leuders ("The defendant, Heidi Leuders, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a court trial, of criminal damage of a landlord's property in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-117e. The defendant makes three claims on appeal. First, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence that she intentionally damaged the tangible property of her landlord, Celly Roberts (landlord). Second, she claims that the trial court improperly denied her motion to suppress (a) evidence discovered following a warrantless entry into her residence and (b) statements she made to the police following her arrest. Finally, she claims that, at her sentencing, the court violated her federal and state constitutional rights to due process by considering conduct related to the crimes of which she was acquitted. We disagree with each of the defendant's claims and affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.

Wednesday, May 22nd

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, May 23rd

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• New London Law Library is closed.

Friday, May 24th

• Danbury Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Stamford Law Library is closing at 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is open from 9:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Monday, May 27th

• All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.

Tuesday, May 28th

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, May 29th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 12:15 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, May 30th

• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.

Friday, May 31st

• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 47, for May 21, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents
Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 67 - 119)
Volume 349: Orders (Pages 906 - 909)
Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 225: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 477 - 552)
Volume 225: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
Volume 225: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports

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

SC20726 - Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission ("This appeal presents an issue of first impression under the first amendment to the United States constitution, namely, the extent to which the statutes and regulations governing the public funding of state elections in connection with the Citizens' Election Program (program), General Statutes § 9-700 et seq., may be applied to preclude publicly funded candidates from using their candidate committee funds to pay for campaign advertisements that, as a rhetorical device, invoke the name of a candidate in a different race to refer more broadly to the policies or political party associated with that candidate. The defendant, the State Elections Enforcement Commission (commission), imposed fines on the plaintiffs, Joe Markley and Rob Sampson, who were publicly funded candidates for state legislative office during the 2014 general election cycle, on the ground that they had violated the statutes and regulations governing the program when they utilized their candidate committee funds to pay for communications that criticized then Governor Dannel Malloy, who was seeking reelection to that office in that same election cycle, in the course of promoting their opposition to his policies. The plaintiffs now appeal from the judgment of the trial court upholding the decision of the commission, claiming that the commission's enforcement of the state election laws in that manner violated their first amendment rights. Although a compelling governmental interest is served by a condition that precludes publicly funded candidates from using program funds to support or oppose candidates in other races, we conclude that the commission violated the plaintiffs' first amendment rights with respect to the five advertisements at issue in this case because they could reasonably be understood to be something other than an appeal to vote against Governor Malloy. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46406 - No. 2 Fraser Place Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Mathis ("More than ten years ago, the plaintiff, No. 2 Fraser Place Condominium Association, Inc., a unit owners' association of a common interest community, brought the underlying action to foreclose a statutory lien for unpaid monthly common expense assessments and late charges in accordance with General Statutes § 47-258 regarding a condominium unit (unit) owned by the defendant Sharon Mathis and occupied by her daughter, the defendant Shalonda Mathis. The court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure on September 23, 2013, and set law days to commence on November 18, 2013. The law days passed without redemption but, to date, the plaintiff has not taken possession of the unit.

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46231 - Cockerham v. Westphalen ("The defendant Jennifer Westphalen appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered against her and in favor of the plaintiff, Kenneth Cockerham, on counts nine, ten, and eleven of the plaintiff's complaint, asserting claims of fraudulent transfer against the defendant and her husband, Adam Westphalen (Westphalen), pursuant to the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in finding that Westphalen fraudulently transferred money to the defendant under the common law and pursuant to General Statutes § 52-552e.Specifically, the defendant argues that the court erred in finding that Westphalen possessed actual fraudulent intent, that the defendant shared in that intent, and that the transfers were made without consideration, leaving Westphalen unable to meet his financial obligations. We disagree with the arguments advanced by the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46193 - Tran v. Woodworth ("The plaintiff, Cuong Kim Tran, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Mark Allen Woodworth and Jennifer Woodworth Sulc, coadministrators of the estate of the decedent, Nancy S. Woodworth. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and determined that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the plaintiff's complaint alleging negligence because (1) the documents on which the defendants relied in support of their motion did not demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact as to the allegations of negligence in the complaint and (2) the plaintiff submitted countervailing evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment. We agree with the plaintiff and, therefore, reverse the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants and remand the case for further proceedings.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC43186 - Holley v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Ronnie Holley, appeals from the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely under General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that his petition was timely under § 52-470 (d) because it was filed within two years of the final judgment on his prior federal habeas petition or, alternatively, that he had established good cause, under § 52-470 (e), to overcome the presumption of unreasonable delay for the filing of his untimely habeas petition in that he was unaware of the statutory time limit. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

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

The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.

Thursday, May 16th

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• New London Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.

Friday, May 17th

• Danbury Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New Britain Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
• New London Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Monday, May 20th

• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, May 21st

• Danbury Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, May 22nd

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, May 23rd

• Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• New London Law Library is closed.

Friday, May 24th

• Danbury Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is open from 9:15 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 46, for May 14, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 225: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 354 - 476)
• Volume 225: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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