AC44760 - Nowak v. Environmental Engery Services, Inc. ("The defendants, Environmental Energy Services, Inc. (EES), and Richard Nowak, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting, in part, the equitable petition for a bill of discovery (petition) filed by the plaintiff, Anna Nowak, in her capacity as the executor of the estate of her late husband, Kenneth Nowak. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly determined that the plaintiff met her burden of establishing probable cause to bring claims against the defendants for corporate misconduct and that the plaintiff had no means, other than the bill of discovery, to discover the majority of the requested records. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC44906 - Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Burke ("The defendants Kevin R. Burke and Maura Lee Wahlberg appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA10.On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly rejected their special defense of laches. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44491 - Kelly v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services (“The plaintiff, George Kelly, who was employed as a per diem psychiatrist by the defendant Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (department), appeals from the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board), upholding the determination by the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for the Eighth District (commissioner) that he was not entitled to enhanced, full salary disability benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 5-142 (a). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board erred in upholding the commissioner’s decision because the commissioner (1) improperly relied on a supersedence appendix and cost sheet, which the plaintiff had offered into evidence, for substantive purposes; (2) failed to allocate to the department the burden of proving that the plaintiff was not entitled to the enhanced benefits of § 5-142 (a); (3) improperly concluded that a 1989 memorandum of agreement between the plaintiff’s union and the state operated to supersede § 5-142 (a) for per diem employees such as the plaintiff; (4) set forth inconsistent conclusions in his original decision and his subsequent decision on the plaintiff’s motion to correct; and (5) improperly concluded that a 1993 collective bargaining agreement, which added psychiatrists to the class of per diem employees, was not required to go through ‘a new supersedence process.’ We affirm the decision of the board.”)

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

AC45090 - Worth v. Picard ("The plaintiff, Keyin Worth, brought the underlying civil action against the defendant Christopher Picard. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered in the defendant's favor after the court granted his motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded as a matter of law that, pursuant to the litigation privilege, the plaintiff's claims were barred by absolute immunity. We dismiss the appeal as moot.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45024 - Braasch v. Freedom of Information Commission (Administrative appeal; alleged violation of Freedom of Information Act (§ 1-200 et seq.); "The plaintiff, Sarah Braasch, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her administrative appeal from the final decision of the Freedom of Information Commission (commission), one of three defendants in this action. The commission concluded that the other two defendants in this action, the Yale University Police Department (department) and the Assistant Chief of the Yale University Police Department (assistant chief), properly denied the plaintiff's request for a copy of certain body camera recordings that were in their custody. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the recordings were exempt from disclosure under General Statutes § 1-210 (b) (3) (H), and (2) granted the motion of the department and the assistant chief to seal the body camera recordings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC45575 - In re Autumn O. ("The respondent mother, Michelle O., appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to two of her minor children, Autumn O. and Joshua W., pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that (1) the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, (2) the respondent had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation, and (3) it was in the best interests of the minor children to terminate her parental rights. We conclude that the appeal is moot as to the first claim and dismiss that portion of the appeal. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20635, SC20637, SC20636 - Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC (“These consolidated appeals, which return to us for a second time, raise identical issues relating to the enforceability of four commercial real estate listing agreements. In Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC, 335 Conn. 174, 211, 229 A.3d 708 (2020) (Reserve Realty I), we held that the listing agreements did not violate state antitrust law and remanded the matter to the Appellate Court for consideration of the remaining grounds on which the defendants, BLT Reserve, LLC (BLT), and Windemere Reserve, LLC (Windemere), had prevailed at trial. On remand, the Appellate Court determined that the listing agreements were unenforceable because they failed to specify the duration of the brokerage authorization, as required by General Statutes § 20-325a (b) and/or (c). See Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC, 205 Conn. App. 299, 302–303, 336, 258 A.3d 711 (2021) (Reserve Realty II). We granted certification to address whether the Appellate Court decided that issue correctly and, if not, whether the trial court’s judgments should nonetheless be affirmed on the alternative ground that the listing agreements were unenforceable personal service contracts. We conclude that the exclusive listing agreements comply with the durational requirement of § 20-325a (c) but that they are personal service contracts that required the personal performance of the named broker, Jeanette Haddad, and we affirm the judgments of the Appellate Court on that basis.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 38, for March 28, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 346: Orders (Pages 917 - 918)
• Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 218: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 288 - 423)
• Volume 218: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 902)
• Volume 218: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC45050 - Murchison v. Waterbury (“The defendant, the city of Waterbury, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiffs, Dickie K. Murchison, Jr., and John J. Bigham, firefighters formerly employed by the defendant, terminal leave pay pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement (agreement). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to terminal leave pay because (1) the plaintiffs ‘‘retired’’ within the meaning of the terminal leave pay provision of the agreement and (2) any ambiguity in the agreement should be construed against the defendant. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC44514 - Pascarella v. Silver ("This case concerns the proper application of the doctrine of res judicata. In their one count complaint, the plaintiffs, Henry Pascarella and Riversedge Partners, predicated their declaratory judgment action against the defendant R.S. Silver Enterprises, Inc., entirely on that doctrine of preclusion. Following a bifurcated bench trial, the trial court concluded that res judicata did not apply under the facts of this case. The plaintiffs now challenge the propriety of that determination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC45034 - Sacramone v. Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P. C. ("In this probate matter, the defendants, Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C. (law firm), and Ronald Milone, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court vacating a decree of the Probate Court awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $97,979.60 in connection with the administration of the estate of Joseph F. Latella, Sr. (estate), and ordering the law firm to return these fees to the estate. The defendants claim that the Superior Court, in an appeal filed by the plaintiff, Frank Sacramone, Jr., the successor administrator of the estate, erred in concluding that the Probate Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award those fees after disallowing them in an earlier decree. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45283 - Wihbey v. Zoning Board of Appeals ("In the last few years, an increasing number of courts around the country have been required to address the extent to which local zoning regulations and restrictive covenants that have been in place for decades restrict the relatively recent practice of residential property owners renting their homes on a short-term basis through websites like VRBO and Airbnb. This case represents the first opportunity for an appellate court in Connecticut to address this question. The defendants, the Pine Orchard Association Zoning Board of Appeals (board), Michael B. Hopkins, and Jacqueline C. Wolff, appeal from the judgment of the trial court reversing the decision of the board upholding the issuance of a zoning enforcement officer's order directing the plaintiff, Frances Wihbey, to cease and desist from using his property located at 3 Crescent Bluff Avenue in the Pine Orchard section of Branford (property) for short-term rentals. The defendants claim that the court improperly determined, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff's use of the property was lawful under § IV of the 1994 Pine Orchard Association zoning regulations (1994 regulations) because it was consistent with the definition of a 'single-family dwelling' and, therefore, was a protected nonconforming use. The defendants also claim, in the alternative, that the court should have remanded the case to the board for consideration of whether, even if short-term rentals were permitted under the 1994 regulations, the plaintiff's rental of the property met the other requirements of those regulations. We reject the defendants' claim that the use of any property in the Pine Orchard Association (Pine Orchard) for short-term rentals was impermissible under the 1994 regulations. We agree, however, that the court improperly determined that the plaintiff had established a lawful nonconforming use of the property when there is no indication in the record that the board decided that question in the first instance. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Land Use Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45055 - Long Manor Owners' Association, Inc. v. Alungbe ("The defendant Gabriel D. Alungbe, a self-represented party, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Long Manor Owners' Association, Inc., arising out of outstanding common charges in connection with the defendant's condominium unit in Long Manor Condominiums in New Britain (complex). The defendant claims that the trial court erred in: (1) denying him his due process rights and the opportunity to present evidence at the trial to determine the amount of the debt; (2) awarding the plaintiff the amount of the debt, as well as attorney's and other fees; (3) appointing David Karat, the property manager of the complex, as receiver of rents; (4) failing to require the plaintiff and Karat to disclose the amount of late fees they charged; (5) granting Karat a receiver fee of $90 per hour; (6) failing to require the plaintiff and Karat to produce evidence regarding water and sewer statements; (7) denying his requests to conduct the trial via alternative means; (8) failing to consider all of the testimony and evidence presented during the trial; and (9) denying his motion to reargue vis-a-vis the foreclosure judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 37, for March 21, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 360 - 391)
• Volume 346: Orders (Pages 914 - 916)
• Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 218: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 216 - 288)
• Volume 218: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
• Volume 218: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

SC20626 - Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC (“The plaintiff filed a petition for certification to appeal, which we granted, limited to the following issues: (1) 'Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the public policy contained in . . . § 31-73 (b) is inapplicable to the facts of this case and, as a matter of law, cannot form the basis for a common-law wrongful [discharge] action?’ And (2) ‘[d]id the Appellate Court correctly conclude, in the alternative, that the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage failed to support the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant actually violated the public policy contained in § 31-73 (b)?’ Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC, 338 Conn. 915, 915–16, 259 A.3d 1180 (2021). We answer both questions in the negative.”

“The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.”)

• SC20626 Dissent - Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44925 - Stewart v. Old Republic National Title Ins. Co. (“On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that, pursuant to the plaintiffs’ title insurance policies, the defendant had no duty to defend the plaintiffs in two actions involving the plaintiffs’ properties. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC41663 - Leffingwell v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus; “In that petition, he claimed, inter alia, that his federal and state constitutional rights were violated as a result of legislative changes pertaining to the administration and application of risk reduction earned credits (RREC). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition without first providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In accordance with our Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), we conclude that the habeas court should not have dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to § 23-29 without first providing the petitioner with notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or other written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.”)

AC41635 - Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition; claim that federal and state constitutional rights were violated as a result of legislative changes; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition without first providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In accordance with our Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), we conclude that the habeas court should not have dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to § 23-29 without first providing the petitioner with notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or other written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.”)

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

AC44356 - State v. Delacruz-Gomez (Assault of public safety personnel and interfering with an officer; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence (1) testimony as to the names of felony charges contained in a prior outstanding warrant for the defendant’s arrest as prior uncharged misconduct evidence, and (2) testimony naming the task force that had executed that warrant, specifically, the Violent Fugitive Task Force. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

SC20584 - Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the plaintiffs, who are the putative beneficiaries of a testamentary bequest, have standing under the special interest exception to the common law rule, codified at General Statutes § 3-125, that the attorney general has exclusive authority to enforce the terms of a charitable gift, to enforce the terms of a bequest from Fred H. Rettich to Our Lady of Mercy School (OLM) in Madison. The plaintiffs appeal, upon our granting of their petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s granting of the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the Archdiocese of Hartford. Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford, 203 Conn. App. 197, 217, 247 A.3d 600 (2021). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that they lacked standing to bring this action. We conclude that the plaintiffs do not come within the 'special interest' exception to the attorney general’s exclusive standing to bring an action to enforce the terms of a charitable gift. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 36, for March 14, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 333 - 359)
• Volume 346: Orders (Pages 910 - 914)
• Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 218: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 85 - 215)
• Volume 218: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 218: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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