The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
AC43380 - Zachs v Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly
(1) denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the defense
strategy employed at his criminal trial by one of his defense attorneys,
Attorney Edward J. Daly, Jr., (2) determined that his conflict of interest
claim was both procedurally defaulted and waived, (3) denied his ineffective
assistance of counsel claim regarding the failure of his other defense
attorney, Attorney Brian W. Wice, to cross-examine the state’s rebuttal
witnesses at his criminal trial, and (4) declined to apply a cumulative
prejudice approach and consider the aggregate effect of counsels’ alleged
errors. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC43583 - Fair v. Commissioner of Correction (Third amended petition; “The petitioner claims that the
habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to
appeal because he demonstrated that he was deprived of his right to the
effective assistance of counsel during his underlying criminal trial. We
conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)
AC43541 - Schott v. Schott ("The defendant, Terrence John Schott, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his postjudgment motion to modify his alimony obligation. He claims that, pursuant to the plain terms of the parties' separation agreement, the court was obligated to terminate that obligation once it found that the plaintiff, Nancy Schott, was cohabitating with another person. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
AC44346 - In re Sequoia G. ("The respondent mother, Michelle L., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, Sequoia, Benjamin and Anice. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly found that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate her parental rights.We disagree with the respondent and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 49, for June 8, 2021 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 336: Connecticut Reports (Pages 685 - 746)
- Volume 336: Orders (Pages 946 - 950)
- Volume 336: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 205: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 144 - 222)
- Volume 205: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 905)
- Volume 205: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
SC20374 - Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("The
primary issues that are before us in this appeal are (1) whether a zoning
administrator has the authority to take conclusive action on an application for
a special permit, and (2) whether an applicant whose special permit application
is rejected as void by a zoning administrator on the ground that it was
incomplete must exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing that action to
a zoning board of appeals....
We
conclude that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the city's zoning
administrator had the authority to void the plaintiff's application for a
special permit. We further conclude that the plaintiff could not have appealed to
the board from the action of the zoning administrator because it was not a legal
decision for purposes of General Statutes § 8-6, which governs such appeals.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")
SC20242 - State v. Mark T. (Risk of injury to a child; Whether trial court properly precluded evidence offered in support of defense of parental justification; "This case requires us to evaluate several evidentiary rulings by the trial court, all of which excluded testimony pertaining to a criminal defendant's justification defense. The defendant, Mark T., who was self-represented at trial, claims that these evidentiary rulings violated his constitutional right to present a defense under the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. The state contends that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to exclude the testimony and disputes the importance of the testimony to the defendant's defense. Regarding the first evidentiary issue, we agree with the state that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding certain testimony during the defendant's cross-examination of the state's key eyewitness. However, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the defendant's direct examination of himself, during which he attempted to testify about information crucial to his justification defense. We also conclude that the trial court's error was harmful.")
SC20242 Concurrence and Dissent - State v. Mark T.
AC44016 - Mirlis v. Yeshiva of New Haven, Inc. ("The defendant, Yeshiva of New Haven, Inc., appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Eliyahu Mirlis. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly determined the valuation of the property in question. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC42992 -
Allco Renewable Energy Ltd. v. Freedom of Information
Commission (Administrative appeal; alleged violation of Freedom of Information Act (§ 1-200 et seq.); "The plaintiffs, Allco Renewable Energy Limited (Allco) and its principal Thomas Melone, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their appeal from the final decision of the defendant Freedom of Information Commission (commission), in which the court concluded that the commission properly dismissed the plaintiffs' request for certain documents of the codefendant Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (department). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that the commission correctly applied General Statutes § 1-210 (b) (5) (A) and (B) of the Freedom of Information Act (act), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")
AC43853 - Berka v. Middletown (Zoning; municipal blight citation; anti-blight ordinance; whether trial court properly
granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's request for jury trial, etc.; "The plaintiff . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition to reopen a municipal blight citation assessment and upholding a failure to pay fines notice issued by the defendant city of Middletown (city), with respect to six blight violations that existed on the plaintiff's rental property located at 5 Maple Place in Middletown (property). Specifically, the plaintiff claims that (1) he should have been granted a jury trial, (2) he should have been allowed to raise constitutional issues related to the blight ordinance at his appeal hearing, (3) the blight citation violated his constitutional rights, (4) boarded windows should not constitute blight, (5) it was neither fair nor reasonable to expect him to pour concrete and to paint in the winter, (6) the blight enforcement officer was not qualified to make structural assessments about the property, (7) the siding on his home was not 'seriously damaged,' (8) the outside structural walls of his home were watertight, (9) there was no garbage, rubbish, or refuse being stored or accumulated in public view, and (10) the hearing officer . . . had a conflict of interest. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43042 - Jackson v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC (Release of mortgage pursuant to statute (§ 49-8); whether trial court improperly
dismissed plaintiffs' action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on basis of plaintiffs'
alleged failure to satisfy requirements of § 49-8 (c) regarding statutory demand notice
for release of mortgage, etc.; "The plaintiffs, Mary Jackson and Johnnie Jackson, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendant, Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, to dismiss the action of the plaintiffs in which they alleged that the defendant violated General Statutes § 49-8 (c) by failing to provide a timely release of their mortgage. The defendant did not argue in its motion that the action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to satisfy the requirements of § 49-8 (c) regarding a statutory demand notice for release of the mortgage. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the action on that ground. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court deprived them of due process by dismissing their action on a ground that the court had raised sua sponte without affording them notice or an opportunity to be heard. We agree with the plaintiffs that neither the defendant's motion to dismiss nor the court alerted them that their alleged noncompliance with the statutory demand notice requirements in § 49-8 (c) was at issue and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
AC42032 - Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court
incorrectly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective
assistance by failing to pursue a defense of lack of capacity due to mental
disease or defect (lack of capacity). We affirm the judgment of the habeas
court...
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that Ovian rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to pursue a lack of capacity defense. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in concluding that Ovian’s representation was not deficient because it erroneously assumed that Ovian would still have pursued a mitigation strategy, versus a lack of capacity defense, if he had obtained all of the petitioner’s medical records, and his trial strategy did not advance the petitioner’s litigation objective, which, in this case, was to obtain mental health treatment at Whiting.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 48, for June 1, 2021 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 336: Orders (Pages 945 - 946)
- Volume 336: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 205: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 15 - 144)
- Volume 205: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
SC20297 - State v. Weathers (Murder; Whether trial court properly rejected insanity defense where the only expert witnesses testified that defendant, as result of mental disease, lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct; "Following his election of and trial to a three judge court empaneled in accordance with General Statutes § 54-82 (a) and (b), the defendant, Gregory L. Weathers, was found guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-217c (a) (1), and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 29-35 (a). In so finding, the trial court rejected the defendant's affirmative defense of mental disease or defect under General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-13 (a) (insanity defense), concluding that, although the defendant demonstrated that he suffered from an unspecified psychotic disorder at the time of the murder, he failed to prove the requisite connection between this condition and his criminal conduct. The trial court rendered judgment accordingly and sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of imprisonment of forty-five years. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction; see State v. Weathers, 188 Conn. App. 600, 635, 205 A.3d 614 (2019); and we granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court's rejection of the defendant's insanity defense was reasonable. See State v. Weathers, 331 Conn. 927, 207 A.3d 518 (2019). The defendant claims that the state neither presented nor elicited evidence to undermine the consensus of his experts that the defendant, as the result of a mental disease, lacked substantial capacity to control his conduct within the requirements of the law, and, therefore, the trial court improperly rejected the experts' opinions arbitrarily. He contends that the Appellate Court's conclusion to the contrary was not supported by legitimate reasons or evidence. We affirm the Appellate Court's judgment.")
AC42466, AC42618 - Antonio A. v. Commissioner of Correction ("In the judgment under review in Docket No. AC 42466, the
habeas court dismissed the petitioner’s second petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 on the ground that the petitioner
had failed to show good cause for his delay in bringing the petition more than
two years following a final judgment denying his first petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. In AC 42466, the petitioner claims that the court erred in (1)
failing to afford his counsel a reasonable opportunity to investigate the cause
of the delay, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of its ruling. In
AC 42466, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. In the judgment under
review in Docket No. AC 42618, the habeas court dismissed the petitioner’s
third petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 on
multiple grounds. In AC 42618, the petitioner claims that the court erred in
(1) denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) denying his motion
for permission to file a late amended petition for certification to appeal and
for reconsideration of the denial of his petition for certification to appeal,
and (3) dismissing the habeas petition. In AC 42618, we dismiss the portion of
the appeal in which the petitioner claims that the court erred in denying the
motion and reverse the judgment dismissing the habeas petition.")
AC44118 - Ortiz v. Torres-Rodriguez ("The self-represented
plaintiff, Pablo Ortiz, Jr., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the
trial court in favor of the defendant, Leslie Torres-Rodriguez. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court
improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all three
counts of his operative complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43376 - Marco v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. ("The plaintiff, Lindsey Marco, appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Starr Indemnity and Liability Company, on the ground that the defendant had no duty to defend its insured, Copa Entertainment Group, LLC (Copa Entertainment), the owner and operator of Zen Bar (bar), the location where the plaintiff had sustained injuries for which she had been awarded damages by an arbitrator in a separate action (underlying action). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court (1) erred in ordering a court trial on the legal issue of whether the defendant had a duty to defend Copa Entertainment when summary judgment previously had been denied on that issue, (2) improperly deprived her of a jury trial on the issue of whether the defendant had a duty to defend its insured, and (3) should have recused itself from this case to avoid the appearance of impropriety after it was involved in pretrial settlement negotiations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43002 - Goshen Mortgage, LLC v. Androulidakis ("The self-represented defendant, Jameela Androulidakis, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Goshen Mortgage, LLC, as Separate Trustee for GDBT I Trust 2011-1. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the plaintiff, Goshen Mortgage, LLC, had standing to bring the foreclosure action, and thus erred by granting the plaintiff's motion to substitute and denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, (2) granted the substitute plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (3) rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure for the substitute plaintiff, and (4) failed to grant the defendant's motion to open the judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC42969 - Fairfield Shores, LLC v. DeSalvo ("The defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff landlord, Fairfield Shores, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the basis of its finding that the plaintiff was exempt, pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-2, from application of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 47a-21, the statute governing security deposits, because it provided housing incidental to the education of the defendant students. Although we conclude that the court improperly considered § 47a-2, we, nevertheless, affirm the judgment of the court.")
SC20388 - Wilton Campus 1691, LLC. v. Wilton (Taxation;
late filing penalty pursuant to General Statutes § 12-63c (d); whether
Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that General Statutes § 12-55 (b)
precluded tax assessor from imposing late filing penalties after taking and
subscribing to oath on grand list; "This appeal involves the temporal limits of a municipal assessor's authority to impost penalties on taxpayers. Specifically, we are asked to resolve a dispute over whether the assessor for the defendant . . . must impose late filing penalties on taxpayers pursuant to General Statutes 12-63c(d), if at all, before taking and subscribing to the oath on the grand list for that assessment year pursuant to General Statutes 12-55 (b) , or may impose the penalty later. The town claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the assessor improperly imposed late filing penalties on the plaintiffs . . . after taking and subscribing to the oath on the grand list for that assessment year. We disagree and therefore affirm the Appellate Court's judgment.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 47, for May 25, 2021 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 336: Connecticut Reports (Pages 633 - 685)
- Volume 336: Orders (Pages 943 - 945)
- Volume 336: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 204: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 729 - 885)
- Volume 204: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
- Volume 204: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Volume 205: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 15)
- Volume 205: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies