AC 45883 - State v. Carlson ("The defendant, Kristopher Carlson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant raises multiple claims concerning the trial court’s jury instructions on consciousness of guilt. Specifically, the defendant claims that (1) the instruction diluted the state’s burden to disprove the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) in a self-defense case, a consciousness of guilt instruction improperly burdens the defendant to explain his conduct in violation of his constitutional right not to testify, (3) the instruction was unwarranted based on the evidence presented at trial, (4) the jury was misled by the instruction, and (5) this court should exercise its supervisory powers and adopt a rule categorically prohibiting consciousness of guilt instructions. We conclude that the court did not err by giving a consciousness of guilt instruction and decline to adopt a rule prohibiting such an instruction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC46383 - Mulvey v. Palo ("The plaintiff, Mona S. Mulvey, trustee of the Mona S. Mulvey Trust (trust), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Stefan Palo, Ema Palo, and Bank of America, N.A., on both her adverse possession claim and the defendants' quiet title counterclaim .On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that she failed to establish (1) her claim of adverse possession with respect to all areas of the property in question and (2) the boundaries of those areas with reasonable certainty. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC46212 - Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Giacomi ("The defendant Alan M. Giacomi appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open and vacate the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered after he was defaulted for failure to plead. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) 'den[ied] [his] requests to participate in foreclosure mediation,' (2) 'sustain[ed] the plaintiff's objection to [his] request to revise on or about February 5, 2020,' and (3) denied his motion to open the default judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 52-212 (a). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46333 - Palmieri v. Cirino ("The plaintiff in the underlying quiet title action, Patrick Palmieri, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding attorney’s fees to the defendant, Frank Cirino, following a default judgment rendered against the plaintiff on the defendant’s counterclaim. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in issuing the award because the affidavit in support of attorney’s fees was filed beyond the thirty day deadline set forth in Practice Book § 11-21 and (2) improperly awarded attorney’s fees that were incurred prior to the present action. We agree with the plaintiff’s second claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new hearing on the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 46223 - M. C. v. A. W. ("The defendant, A. W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, M. C. On appeal, we distill the defendant’s claims to be that the court (1) failed to recuse itself on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest, (2) made clearly erroneous factual findings in support of its financial and property distribution orders, (3) failed to consider adequately the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the court’s discovery orders in entering its financial and property distribution orders, and (4) improperly distributed the parties’ assets. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC 46005- M. S. v. M. S. ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the self-represented defendant, M. S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion for contempt. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly construed a child support order and found that the plaintiff, M. S., did not owe an arrearage. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family 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, June 27th

• Bridgeport Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is closed.

Friday, June 28th

• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.

Monday July 1st

• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Rockville Law Library closing at 4:45 p.m.

Tuesday, July 2nd

• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, July 3rd

• New Britain Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, July 4th

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

Friday, July 5th

• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20807 - Wahba v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("The primary issue before us in this appeal is whether, after an appellate court has affirmed a trial court's judgment of strict foreclosure and remanded the case to the trial court to set new law days, the trial court has authority to open that judgment and render instead a judgment of foreclosure by sale based on changed market conditions. The Appellate Court, in the second appeal taken in this case, answered this question in the negative and further concluded that, even if the trial court had such authority, the plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, did not provide an adequate evidentiary foundation for her request that the court consider ordering a foreclosure by sale. See Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Conn. App. 236, 239–40, 283 A.3d 1095 (2022) (Wahba II). We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal to this court from these rulings. See Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 346 Conn. 912, 289 A.3d 597 (2023). We conclude that, contrary to the contention of the defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the doctrine of res judicata did not bar the trial court from entertaining the plaintiff's request that the trial court consider ordering a foreclosure by sale instead of simply resetting the law days. We further conclude that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that (1) its remand order directing the trial court to set new law days deprived the trial court of authority to entertain the plaintiff's request, and (2) even if the trial court had such authority, the plaintiff's request was not supported by an adequate evidentiary foundation. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 52, for June 25, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 417 - 513)
• Volume 349: Orders (Pages 916 - 917)
• Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 226: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 378 - 430)
• Volume 226: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 226: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

SC20719 - Cooke v. Williams ("In Taylor v. Wallace, 184 Conn. App. 43, 51–52, 194 A.3d 343 (2018), the Appellate Court adopted what is generally referred to as the exoneration rule for civil claims seeking relief against a plaintiff's former criminal defense or habeas counsel for harm allegedly caused by the lawyer's legal malpractice. The exoneration rule provides that appellate or postconviction relief is a necessary element of a claim for criminal malpractice if that claim challenges the validity of an underlying conviction by requiring proof that the attorney's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's conviction as a defendant in the underlying criminal case. Id. The Appellate Court in Taylor further explained that the failure to obtain appellate or postconviction relief renders the criminal malpractice claim unripe and, therefore, not justiciable. Id. Applying the exoneration rule to the present case, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the claim of criminal malpractice filed by the plaintiff, Ian T. Cooke, against the defendants, John R. Williams and John R. Williams and Associates, LLC, the attorney and law firm that represented the plaintiff in his habeas case. Cooke v. Williams, 206 Conn. App. 151, 165, 259 A.3d 1211 (2021).

...

In the present case, we conclude that, because the plaintiff's claim of criminal malpractice necessarily requires findings that would undermine the validity of his underlying conviction and he has not obtained appellate or postconviction relief, he has not alleged a cognizable claim of criminal malpractice. We reverse the Appellate Court's judgment dismissing the criminal malpractice claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")

• SC20719 Concurrence - Cooke v. Williams

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

SC20708 - State v. Bember ("Following a jury trial, the defendant, Tyhitt Bember, was convicted of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-134 (a) (2), and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the state to question two of its witnesses about their cooperation agreements with the state during direct examination and that this questioning amounted to prosecutorial impropriety, (2) the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the testimony of the cooperating witnesses was reliable and admissible pursuant to General Statutes § 54-86p, and (3) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the recording of a jailhouse phone call and the .22 caliber revolver seized by the police as a result of information acquired from that recording violated his rights under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution. We reject the defendant's claims and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Motion for Contempt in Family Matters has been added to our research guides web page.

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

AC46483 - Martin v. Olson (“The plaintiff, Daniel A. Martin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Christopher R. Olson, executor of the estate of Robert K. Olson (decedent). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) instructed the jury regarding the defendant’s statute of limitations defense, (2) admitted into evidence certain testimony, and (3) permitted the defendant to present the testimony of undisclosed witnesses during his case-in-chief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

“The plaintiff brought causes of action sounding in breach of express oral contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and ‘breach of promise to nominate as beneficiary.’ In support of these claims, the plaintiff testified at trial that he would have yearly discussions with the decedent during which the decedent promised to compensate the plaintiff for providing him with caregiving services. The court reasonably could have determined that the testimony provided by the defendant and the plaintiff’s mother regarding their reactions to the plaintiff’s claim against the decedent’s estate was relevant because it was offered to assist the jury in determining whether it found credible the plaintiff’s testimony that the decedent promised to compensate the plaintiff for providing caregiver services. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the defendant and the plaintiff’s mother to testify to their reactions to the plaintiff’s claim against the decedent’s estate.)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46047 - Speer v. Skaats ("The plaintiff, Sheri Speer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, Goodrow, J., dismissing the civil action brought by her against the defendant, Donna Skaats. The plaintiff claims that, in dismissing the action, the court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because she was not aggrieved and, thus, lacked standing to bring the action. The plaintiff also claims that the court, Spallone, J., erred in "denying [her motion for] summary judgment." We agree with the plaintiff's first claim and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

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

Thursday, June 20th

• Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
• New Britain Law Library is closed from 12:45 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
• Rockville Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
• Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.

Friday, June 21st

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Hartford Law Library is closed from 12:00 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
• New London Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.

Monday June 24th

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

Tuesday, June 25th

• New London Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, June 26th

• Danbury Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
• Hartford Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
• New Britain Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Stamford Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.

Thursday, June 27th

• Bridgeport Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is closed.

Friday, June 28th

• Middletown Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC47076 - In re P. M. ("The respondent father, I. M. (respondent), appeals from the judgment of the trial court adjudicating his minor child, P. M. (P), neglected. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court erred in adjudicating P neglected because the evidence relied upon by the court is not sufficient to support its determination that P was denied proper care and attention and was permitted to live under conditions and circumstances injurious to his well-being. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 51, for June 18, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 268 - 417)
• Volume 349: Orders (Pages 913 - 915)
• Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 226: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 211 - 377)
• Volume 226: 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

SC20692 - State v. Andres C. ("The defendant, Andres C., was convicted, after a court trial, of sexual assault in the third degree and risk of injury to a child. During the complainant's testimony at trial, she revealed that, after the assaults, she had engaged in therapy, and, during that therapy, she had kept journals, in Spanish, in which she had written about, among other things, her relationship with the defendant and his sexual abuse of her. Following this revelation, defense counsel requested that the trial court review the journals for potential statements and exculpatory information that should be disclosed to the defendant. After a discussion with the court about this revelation, the parties agreed that the complainant would provide the journals to the prosecutor, and, because the journals were written in Spanish, the prosecutor would enlist the assistance of a Spanish-speaking investigator on her staff to help review the journals. On the basis of the investigator's review, the prosecutor represented to the court that there was no material in the journals that was subject to disclosure under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). Out of an abundance of caution, however, she submitted four pages of the journals to the court for its review, indicating that she thought the pages were subject to General Statutes § 54-86f, the rape shield statute. Those four pages were translated into English and reviewed by the trial court, and the court disclosed one page to the defendant as potential impeachment material.

...

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.")

• SC20692 Concurrence - State v. Andres C.
• SC20692 Concurrence & Dissent - State v. Andres C.
• SC20692 Dissent - State v. Andres C.

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

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Foreclosure of Mortgages in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

AC 45848 - Czunas v. Mancini ("In this postjudgment marital dissolution matter, the defendant, Richard J. Mancini, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify child support and awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff, Sandra E. Czunas, to defend against this appeal. The defendant claims that the court (1) improperly found that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances since the date of the entry of the prior child support order that warranted a modification of that order, and (2) the court abused its discretion in awarding the plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,000 to defend against this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45849 - L. K. v. K. K. ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the defendant, K. K., appeals challenging the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to modify the amount of unallocated alimony and child support that he is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, L. K. On appeal, the defendant raises various claims concerning the denial of his motion to modify, which we distill to the following: (1) the court, in its written order denying the motion to modify, improperly failed to address the defendant’s claim that a reduction in the child support component of the unallocated order was warranted due to the fact that one of the parties’ three children had reached the age of majority, and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to modify by ignoring the tax returns, financial statements and other financial documents that had been submitted into evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions