The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 13, for September 26, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 90 - 132)
• Volume 348: Orders (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 221: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 657 - 689)
• Volume 221: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 221: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC45623 - Williams v. Green Power Ventures, LLC ("The plaintiffs, Davidson D. Williams and Barbara R. Williams, appeal from the judgment of the trial court on their complaint against the defendants, Green Power Ventures, LLC (Green Power), 141 Anchorage, LLC, Edward Stern and Amy Stern (Sterns), and Keith J. Manca Building Company, LLC (Manca Building), and on the counterclaim filed by Green Power and 141 Anchorage, LLC. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for trespass and nuisance arising out of the defendants' alleged interference with the plaintiffs' use of a right-of-way easement over Green Power's property, which abuts 141 Anchorage, LLC's property. In their counterclaim, Green Power and 141 Anchorage, LLC, sought a declaratory judgment defining the permissible uses of the easement. In resolving the parties' competing claims, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' easement is limited to foot passage only, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief or attorney's fees, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to $500 as 'token damages' on their nuisance claim.

On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) concluded that their easement is limited to foot passage only, (2) found that the fence and gate that the defendants placed across the right-of-way did not constitute an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' use of the easement, (3) found that the defendants did not engage in brazen and wanton conduct in connection with the planning, permitting, and development of their project that interferes with the plaintiffs' use of the easement, and (4) failed to consider evidence that the defendants are altering the location and dimensions of the easement. We agree with the plaintiffs' first claim and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20701 - Salce v. Cardello (“In this certified appeal, we consider the extent to which in terrorem, or no-contest, clauses in will and trust documents are enforceable against a beneficiary who has challenged certain aspects of the performance of a fiduciary, namely, the executor of the will or the trustee of the trust. The plaintiff, John Salce, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the defendant, Joan Cardello, dismissing his probate appeal. See Salce v. Cardello, 210 Conn. App. 66, 68, 82, 269 A.3d 889 (2022). On appeal, the plaintiff principally contends that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that enforcement of the in terrorem clauses in the decedent’s will and trust agreement against the defendant would violate public policy when she challenged the executor’s refusal (1) to remove her personal bank account from the estate’s Connecticut estate and gift tax return, and (2) to deduct the outstanding mortgages from the value of the estate on the return. Consistent with this court’s venerable decisions in South Norwalk Trust Co. v. St. John, 92 Conn. 168, 101 A. 961 (1917), and Griffin v. Sturges, 131 Conn. 471, 40 A.2d 758 (1944), because the defendant’s actions were based in good faith, we conclude that enforcement of the in terrorem clauses in the present case would violate the public policy embodied by our statutes requiring probate courts to supervise fiduciaries. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• SC20701 - Dissent

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20702 - State v. Butler (“This certified appeal requires us to decide, as a matter of first impression, whether a criminal court has inherent common-law jurisdiction to open a judgment of dismissal following the defendant’s completion of a supervised diversionary program within four months of the date it was rendered. We are also asked to decide whether the trial court has the authority to open the same judgment of dismissal if that judgment was the result of purported misrepresentations to the court. We conclude that criminal courts do not have jurisdiction to open a judgment following a dismissal. We also decline to reach the second certified question because the trial court made no findings of misrepresentations in the present case.”)

• Concurrence

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 12, for September 19, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 89)
• Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 221: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 597 - 656)
• Volume 221: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 221: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

AC45365 - Colandrea v. State Dental Commission ("The plaintiff, Anthony Colandrea, a dentist, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant Connecticut State Dental Commission (commission) disciplining him after finding him guilty of incompetence or negligence toward patients in violation of General Statutes § 20-114 (a) (2). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his administrative appeal because (1) the administrative disciplinary proceeding before the commission was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, (2) the defendant Department of Public Health (department) failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice that purportedly arose from an ex parte communication between the department’s attorney and a former member of the panel that submitted a proposed decision to the commission mission pursuant to General Statutes § 4-179, (3) the commission abused its discretion in revoking his dental license as a disciplinary sanction, (4) the panel and the commission failed to act as impartial arbiters, and (5) the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to allow proof outside of the record. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

AC45056 - Commissioner of Public Health v. Colandrea ("The defendant, Anthony Colandrea, appeals from the judgment of the trial court (1) denying his motion to vacate a contempt enforcement order, which stemmed from a contempt judgment rendered against him following his noncompliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the plaintiff, the Commissioner of Public Health, for certain records of his dental practice, and (2) granting in part the plaintiff's motion to increase a per diem fine that the court ordered as a contempt sanction. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court's judgment constitutes error because (1) the present subpoena enforcement action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, (2) the contempt proceeding against him was criminal in nature, such that (a) he was entitled to several rights afforded by the federal constitution and (b) the Office of the Attorney General, which represents the plaintiff, lost its statutory authority to continue seeking to enforce the subpoena on behalf of the plaintiff, and (3) the investigation with respect to which the plaintiff issued the subpoena has been concluded, thereby depriving the plaintiff of its statutory authority to continue prosecuting the present subpoena enforcement action. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20452 - State v. Robles (Murder; criminal possession of a firearm; illegal possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle ; “The defendant elected a jury trial on the murder charge and a bench trial on the charges of criminal possession of a firearm and possessing a weapon in a motor vehicle. The jury found the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a. After the bench trial, the court found the defendant guilty of both criminal possession of a firearm and possessing a weapon in a motor vehicle…On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court violated his right to confront the witnesses against him under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution4 by allowing Chief Medical Examiner James Gill to testify about the results of the victim’s autopsy, which he had not performed himself, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of possessing a weapon in a motor vehicle. We disagree with the defendant’s first claim and affirm the trial court’s judgment as to the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. With respect to the defendant’s second claim, we agree that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of possessing a weapon in a motor vehicle and, therefore, reverse the trial court’s judgment as to that conviction.”)

• First Concurrence & Dissent
• Second Concurrence & Dissent

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 11, for September 12, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 347: Connecticut Reports (Pages 817 - 857)
• Volume 347: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 221: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 526 - 597)
• Volume 221: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 221: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases

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

AC45841 - Godfrey-Hill v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and to call a certain witness to testify during the petitioner’s criminal trial and (2) he was not prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficiencies. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC45321 - Madera v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance. We agree with the habeas court’s conclusion and, accordingly, affirm its judgment.”)

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

AC45395 - Cooling v. Torrington (“The plaintiff, Jason Cooling, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the city of Torrington, on the plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the defendant discriminated against him on the basis of disability by, inter alia, failing to engage in a good faith interactive process to provide him with a reasonable accommodation and by subjecting him to a hostile work environment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant (1) had not engaged in the requisite good faith interactive process to discover a reasonable accommodation for his disability and (2) had subjected him to a hostile work environment. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20683 - State v. Velasquez-Mattos (Sexual Assault in First Degree; Risk of injury to a child; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted, pursuant to the constancy of accusation doctrine, testimony that included excessive and unnecessary details of the sexual assault of the victim, J, (2) the trial court improperly excluded impeachment evidence of pending criminal charges against a key witness for the state, and (3) the first degree sexual assault charge was duplicitous, in violation of his sixth amendment right to jury unanimity. We disagree with the defendant’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 10, for September 5, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 347: Connecticut Reports (Pages 758 - 816)
• Volume 347: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 221: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 475 - 525)
• Volume 221: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

• SC20664 - Tilsen v. Benson: (Dissolution of Marriage, "The principal issue in this appeal requires us to consider the extent to which a Connecticut court may enforce the terms of a ‘‘ketubah,’’ which is a contract governing marriage under Jewish law, without entangling itself in religious matters in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44975 - CCI Computerworks, LLC v. Evernet Consulting, LLC (“The defendant, Evernet Consulting, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, CCI Computerworks, LLC, on the defendant’s counterclaim asserting claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and indemnification. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the agreement executed by the parties attributed liability to the defendant, rather than to the plaintiff, for unemployment taxes, plus interest and penalties, assessed on the defendant by the Department of Labor (department), or (2) in the alternative, the plaintiff was not unjustly enriched by the defendant’s payment of the unemployment taxes, interest, and penalties. We conclude that the court properly rendered judgment in the plaintiff’s favor on the defendant’s counterclaim. In addition, the plaintiff cross appeals from the judgment of the court rendered in its favor on count one of its second amended complaint asserting breach of contract. On cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied its motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of a settlement offer, (2) admitted the settlement evidence in full into the record, (3) relied on the settlement evidence to conclude that it had failed to mitigate its damages, and (4) failed to adjudicate its claim that the defendant breached the parties’ agreement by crediting certain costs against the payments that the defendant owed pursuant to the agreement. We agree with the plaintiff’s claims of error regarding the settlement evidence, but we disagree with the plaintiff’s contention that the court overlooked one of its claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court rendered on the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and we affirm the judgment in all other respects.”)

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

AC45109 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof ("This foreclosure action returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court. In our prior opinion, this court rejected the various claims raised by the defendants, Roger Essaghof and Katherine Marr-Essaghof, who had appealed from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, to reset the law days in accordance with a previous remand order of our Supreme Court. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, 217 Conn. App. 93, 95, 287 A.3d 1124 (2022), vacated, 346 Conn. 909, 288 A.3d 1031 (2023). The defendants thereafter filed a petition for certification with the Supreme Court, in which they challenged only this court’s conclusion that the trial court properly had denied their motion to dismiss predicated on the plaintiff’s alleged noncompliance with the notice requirement of the Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP) set forth in General Statutes § 8- 265ee (a).

By order dated February 16, 2023, our Supreme Court granted that petition, vacated the judgment of this court, and remanded the case to us ‘with direction to reconsider in light of [its] decision in Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope, 345 Conn. 662, 286 A.3d 891 (2022).’ See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Essaghof, 346 Conn. 909, 288 A.3d 1031 (2023). This court then ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the impact of that decision on the present appeal and heard argument from the parties on April 25, 2023. On August 1, 2023, our Supreme Court released its decision in KeyBank, N.A. v. Yazar, 347 Conn. 381, 297 A.3d 968 (2023), which concerns the proper statutory construction of the EMAP notice requirement codified in § 8- 265ee (a). Accordingly, this court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the impact of KeyBank, N.A. v. Yazar, supra, 381, on this appeal. Having considered the defendants’ claim in light of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20686 - Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Commission ("This appeal presents the issue whether a police report created by the police department at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital (Whiting) is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq. The police report at issue documented the police department's investigation into the death of a patient at Whiting after a medical event. The named defendant, the Freedom of Information Commission (commission), appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which ordered the disclosure of a redacted version of the police report under FOIA, claiming that the report should be released in its entirety because it is not exempt from disclosure by (1) the psychiatrist-patient communications privilege codified at General Statutes §§ 52-146d (2) and 52-146e (a), or (2) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq., as implemented by the Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 160.101 et seq. The plaintiffs, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services and the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), disagree and cross appeal, claiming that the police report should not be released at all, even in redacted form, because it is protected by the psychiatrist-patient communications privilege and HIPAA.

We conclude that the police report is not a communication or record, as those terms are used in § 52-146e (a), and, therefore, is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Nonetheless, the police report includes information that would identify a patient at Whiting, even though such information specifically was excluded from the FOIA request, and the report therefore should be redacted in the manner described in part III A 2 of this opinion. Because the police report, with minimal redaction, must be disclosed pursuant to FOIA, we further conclude that it is not protected from disclosure by HIPAA and its implementing Privacy Rule. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• SC20686 - Concurrence & Dissent
• SC20686 - Dissent

• Posted in:
• Freedom of Information Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 9, for August 29, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 347: Connecticut Reports (Pages 648 - 757)
• Volume 347: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 221: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 387 - 474)
• Volume 221: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC20693 - State v. James K. (“On appeal to this court, the defendant asserts that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court did not (1) improperly limit defense counsel’s questions to potential jurors and that this limitation did not result in harmful prejudice, and (2) improperly admit into evidence a video recording of the forensic interview of the victim regarding the crimes at issue. We disagree and conclude that, even if the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s questions to potential jurors, any error did not result in harmful prejudice, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the video recording of the forensic interview into evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

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

AC45274 - Fraser Lane Associates, LLC v. Chip Fund 7, LLC . (The defendant, Chip Fund 7, LLC, appeals from the judgments of the trial court confirming an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, Fraser Lane Associates, LLC, and denying the defendant’s application to vacate an arbitration award. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred because (1) the arbitration award violates public policy, (2) the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the arbitration agreement, and (3) the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45036 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Amelio ("The defendant Carmine Amelio appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A6 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-F. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion for an order to allow inspection of the original promissory note in accordance with Practice Book § 23-18. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions