The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 29, for January 13, 2026 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 354: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 20)
• Volume 354: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 237: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 115 - 241)
• Volume 237: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
• Volume 237: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
• Title page for Connecticut Reports

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

SC20989 - State v. Christon M. (One count each of assault in the first degree by means of the discharge of a firearm, home invasion, criminal possession of a firearm and threatening in the second degree, and two counts of risk of injury to a child; “The defendant claims that the trial court violated his right under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him by instructing the jury about a subdivision of the home invasion statute under which he was not charged. He further claims that his convictions of home invasion and first degree assault violate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution. We affirm the judgment of conviction.”)

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

AC46499 - Hope v. Willimantic Partners, LLC ("In this premises liability action, the defendant Willimantic Partners, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiffs, Richard Hope and his daughter, Deborah Oliver, after they sustained injuries following a fall on property owned by the defendant and leased to Liberty Bank. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was insufficient evidence that a defect existed where Hope fell and that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of a specific defect on the premises, (2) admitted Hope's statements under the dead man's statute, General Statutes § 52-172, without limitation at trial despite the fact that Oliver is a living party, (3) denied its motion to set aside the verdict despite that the jury acted improperly by disregarding the law and the court's instructions on comparative negligence, and (4) declined to charge the jury on spoliation of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC47191 - Jan G. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel, Attorney Michael Isko, (1) violated the petitioner’s sixth amendment right to autonomy to decide the fundamental objectives of his defense, as established in McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L. Ed. 2d 821 (2018), and (2) rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by pursuing a defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED), rather than the petitioner’s preferred defense of demonic possession or a lack of capacity due to mental disease or defect. We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC47274 - Anwar S. v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly dismissed his claim in count three of the amended petition that he was deprived of his constitutional right to confrontation on the ground of res judicata. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal and, therefore, dismiss this appeal.”)

AC46765 - Bobe v. Commissioner of Correction (On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) abused its discretion and denied him his 'basic constitutional right to present witnesses at trial,' in violation of due process of law, when it denied his motion for a continuance of the habeas trial, and (3) improperly concluded that he had failed to prove ineffective assistance of his criminal trial counsel. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC47335 - State v. Velazquez ("Following a conditional plea of nolo contendere, entered pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, the defendant, Stanley Velazquez, appeals from the judgment of conviction of possession with intent to sell more than one ounce of heroin in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (a) (1) (A) (i), possession with intent to sell more than one-half ounce of cocaine in violation of § 21a-278 (a) (1) (A) (ii), and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 53a-217 (a) (1). The defendant entered his conditional plea after the court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment in which he resided. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress because the search warrant application and affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the search of his apartment and the seizure of property therein. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 28, for January 6, 2026 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 353: Connecticut Reports (Pages 845 - 875)
• Volume 353: Orders (Pages 938 - 941)
• Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 237: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 45 - 114)
• Volume 237: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 237: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC 21062 - Orlando v. Liburd (“ The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed as unripe the unjust enrichment claim asserted by the plaintiff, Rocco Orlando, against his automobile insurer, the third-party defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide). The unjust enrichment claim is based on Nationwide’s allegedly wrongful enforcement of its subrogation rights against the defendant, Ernest Liburd, prior to the adjudication of the plaintiff’s negligence action against Liburd. The trial court concluded, and the Appellate Court agreed, that the plaintiff’s claim was not ripe for adjudication under the make whole doctrine until the plaintiff first obtained a judgment against Liburd.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that his claim is ripe for adjudication because Nationwide’s premature subrogation constituted a cognizable legal injury, despite any uncertainty as to the amount of his damages. In addition to arguing that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the plaintiff’s claim is not ripe, Nationwide claims, as an alternative ground for affirming the Appellate Court’s judgment, that the plaintiff also lacks standing to assert it. We agree with the plaintiff that the matter is ripe for adjudication and conclude that he has standing to pursue the claim. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC48174 - Alterio v. Spak ("The plaintiff, Matthew Alterio, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint against the defendant, Wendy Spak, pursuant to Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute, General Statutes § 52-196a. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant had met her initial showing, pursuant to § 52-196a (e) (3), that the plaintiff's complaint was based on the defendant's exercise of her right to petition the government on a matter of public concern, and (2) dismissed his claims of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant counters, inter alia, that the plaintiff failed to adequately brief his claims on appeal. We agree with the defendant that the plaintiff's claims are inadequately briefed, and, thus, we decline to review them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC47603 - State v. Stepherson ("The defendant, Bakari Stepherson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (3). The defendant claims that the evidence, even when construed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, was insufficient for the jury reasonably to find that the victim, Issam Madineh, had suffered a serious physical injury. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of conviction.")

AC48991 - State v. Kenneth G. ("The defendant, Kenneth G., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of child pornography in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 53a-196d (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of possession of child pornography. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC48053 - Villwell Builders I, LLC v. Pereira (“The present appeal arises out of four separate actions commenced by the plaintiff home improvement contractor, Villwell Builders I, LLC, against the defendant condominium owners, Linda Biagioni, Andrew Biagioni, Phil Pereira, Gina Pereira, Karrie Sadler and Julia Wexler. The four cases were consolidated for trial. The plaintiff appeals from the judgments rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants on their respective counterclaims for breach of contract and negligence. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) found that the plaintiff materially breached the contracts by and between the plaintiff and the respective defendants regarding certain construction work to be completed on their condominiums; (2) calculated damages on the breach of contract counterclaims; and (3) found that the plaintiff breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded damages on the claim when no such claim was pleaded. We conclude that, although the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff breached the contracts was not clearly erroneous, it improperly calculated damages for the breach of contract counterclaims. We therefore reverse the judgments of the trial court as to the awards of damages, vacate those awards, and remand the cases with direction to award nominal damages to the defendants on their breach of contract counterclaims.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 27, for December 30, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 353: Connecticut Reports (Pages 823 - 845)
• Volume 353: Orders (Pages 934 - 937)
• Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 237: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 45)
• Volume 237: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 237: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
• Notice Publishing Deadlines

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

SC21125 - State v. Enrrique H. ("This appeal requires us to determine the circumstances under which a defendant may be found guilty of violating a protective order and of criminal possession of a firearm or ammunition. Specifically, we must determine, among other things, the scope of the phrase ‘‘a case involving’’ the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, as used in General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A). The defendant, Enrrique H., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of one count of criminal possession of a firearm or ammunition while subject to a protective order in violation of § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A), and one count of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223. He argues that the trial court had improperly denied his motion to dismiss.

The defendant first claims that the criminal possession charge fails as a matter of law because his two preexisting protective orders were not issued ‘‘in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person,’’ as § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A) requires. In support of this claim, he argues that, because his two protective orders arose from the alleged violations of statutes that did not include the actual, attempted, or threatened use of physical force as an element of the crimes, neither prosecution qualified as ‘‘a case involving’’ this subject. In the alternative, he claims that § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him because there is no evidence that the courts that issued the protective orders made any factual findings regarding the actual, attempted, or threatened use of physical force. Finally, he claims that the criminal possession of a firearm or ammunition and criminal violation of a protective order charges fail as a matter of law because the underlying protective orders on which they are predicated violate the second amendment to the United States constitution. We disagree with these claims and affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

AC47941 - Connecticut Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC v. Dept. of Consumer Protection, Liquor Control Commission ("General Statutes § 30-94 (a) and § 30-6- A29 (a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies prohibit a licensed permittee, in any transaction with another permittee, from receiving any free goods, gratuities, gifts ‘or other inducements’ in connection with the sale of alcoholic beverages. The plaintiffs, Connecticut Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Connecticut Fine Wine), and its representative owner, David J. Trone, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs’ administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Department of Consumer Protection, Liquor Control Commission (commission), concluding that the plaintiffs violated those provisions by receiving an improper inducement in the form of free labor, namely, the shelf stocking of newly delivered beer at the plaintiffs’ two retail liquor stores by employees of the two wholesale beer distributors who supplied the beer to the stores. On appeal to this court, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that (1) substantial evidence supports the commission’s finding that the beer distributors’ employees provided the plaintiffs with free labor by stocking the shelves of the plaintiffs’ stores, and (2) even if the evidence supports a finding that the distributors’ employees engaged in shelf stocking at the plaintiffs’ stores, such free labor is not a prohibited inducement under § 30-94 (a) and § 30-6- A29 (a) of the regulations without proof that the stocking was done pursuant to an agreement between the distributors and the stores that the distributors would provide such free labor to the stores. We agree with the trial court that the evidence supports the commission’s finding that the distributors’ employees were stocking beer on the shelves of the plaintiffs’ stores. With respect to the plaintiffs’ claim that such stocking, even if proven, is not, without more, a prohibited inducement, we decline to review that claim because the plaintiffs failed to raise it before the commission. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

AC47683 - Bowens v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act - (“The board affirmed the decision of the referee at the Employment Security Appeals Division (referee) denying, as untimely, the plaintiff’s motion to open the referee’s decision dismissing, as untimely, her appeal from the defendant’s decision determining that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits. In the administrative appeal, the Superior Court remanded the matter for reconsideration of the referee’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to open. On appeal to this court, the defendant claims that the Superior Court exceeded its limited scope of judicial review in making factual findings and in substituting its judgment for that of the board, which, the defendant maintains, properly affirmed the referee’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to open. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.”)

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

AC47975 - Ferrua v. Napoli Foods, Inc (“The plaintiffs, Elton Ferrua (Elton) and Milika Ferrua (Milika), brought the civil action underlying this appeal, which alleges claims of abuse of process and loss of consortium, respectively, against the defendants Dominick C. Statile, a Connecticut attorney, and Montstream Law Group, LLP (Montstream). The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to strike and thereafter rendered judgment dismissing the complaint, from which the plaintiffs now appeal, claiming that the court improperly (1) converted the defendants’ motion to strike into a motion to dismiss, (2) concluded that Elton failed to sufficiently plead an actionable abuse of process claim, and (3) determined that the defendants’ conduct was absolutely privileged and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants respond, inter alia, that the appeal is moot because the plaintiffs have not challenged on appeal the court’s conclusion that their action was barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity provision in General Statutes § 31-284 (a), even though this was an independent ground to support the granting of the defendants’ motion to strike. We agree with the defendants that the appeal is moot because the plaintiffs have failed to challenge an independent ground that supports the judgment of the trial court striking counts one, two, three, and four of the operative complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law,
• Workers' Compensation Law

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 26, for December 23, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 353: Connecticut Reports (Pages 783 - 823)
• Volume 353: Orders (Pages 934 - 934)
• Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 236: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 742 - 894)
• Volume 236: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 909 - 911)
• Volume 236: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
• Notice Publishing Deadlines

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

SC21047 - Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Vaccaro ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the failure of the respondent attorney, Enrico Vaccaro, to appeal from the decisions of the Statewide Grievance Committee and its reviewing committee precluded him from raising, upon his presentment to the Superior Court, his claim that delays in the underlying grievance proceedings resulted in a denial of due process.

---

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to reverse the trial court's judgment and to remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")

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

SC21004 - State v. Thorpe ("A jury found the defendant, Joseph Thorpe, guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) in connection with the fatal shooting of the victim, Roberto Vargas, during a drug deal in Hartford. On appeal, the defendant, who testified at trial that he had acted in self-defense when he shot the victim, claims that the trial court committed plain error by permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine him regarding his prearrest silence. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

AC47955 - Seramonte CT, LLC v. Blau ("The defendants, Greta Blau and Paul Boudreau, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion for attorney's fees filed pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the court improperly concluded that the attorney's fees sought by the defendants were not authorized by § 42-150bb because the serious nuisances alleged in the underlying summary process action were not based on the defendants' residential lease with the plaintiff, Seramonte CT, LLC. We conclude that the trial court properly determined that reciprocal attorney's fees were not available to the defendants pursuant to § 42-150bb under the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the court properly denied the defendants' motion for attorney's fees.

---

The judgment is affirmed.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46561 - State v. Nathan S. ("The defendant, Nathan S., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of the crimes of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A), risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2), and risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted certain testimony from his son, U, regarding statements made to U by the defendant concerning the physical appearances of U’s middle school female classmates (a) pursuant to § 4-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence as evidence of other sexual misconduct by the defendant to establish that he had a propensity to engage in aberrant and compulsive sexual misconduct, and (b) pursuant to § 4-5 (c) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence as evidence of the defendant’s specific intent to obtain sexual gratification for purposes of the charge of sexual assault in the fourth degree, and that he was harmed by the erroneous admission of that testimony, (2) the prosecutor engaged in impropriety during cross-examination of an expert witness for the defense by suggesting to the jury, without a scientific or evidentiary basis, that it could conduct its own review of certain DNA evidence to determine whether it matched the defendant’s DNA profile, even though the uncontradicted scientific expert testimony established that the defendant was excluded as a possible contributor to the DNA evidence, and (3) the trial court violated his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict with respect to the charge of sexual assault in the fourth degree by failing to give a proper specific unanimity instruction to the jury. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• AC46561 Concurrence - State v. Nathan S.

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

AC48365 - Evexia Holdings, Inc. v. Geurts (“The plaintiffs, Evexia Holdings, Inc. (Evexia), Evexia Diagnostics, Inc. (EDI), and Kevin K. Bodling, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court denying their application to vacate an arbitration award rendered in favor of the defendant, Dale A. Geurts, and granting the defendant’s motion to confirm the award. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly rejected their argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by imposing a constructive trust on certain shares of stock owned by Bodling that the plaintiffs assert were not directly at issue in the arbitration. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions