AC43115 - State v. Fields (Operating motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs; operating motor vehicle while having elevated blood alcohol content; "The defendant, Joseph Fields, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs and operating a motor vehicle while having an elevated blood alcohol content in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1) and (2), respectively. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly declined to suppress evidence of his performance of a field sobriety test and evidence of his blood alcohol content, the latter of which was obtained pursuant to a search warrant application, because that evidence was the tainted fruit of his unlawful detention by the police. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43097 - State v. Luna (Misconduct with motor vehicle; assault in third degree; "The defendant, Jasmin I. Luna, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of misconduct with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a-57 and assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61 (a) (3) in connection with a motor vehicle accident in which the defendant's vehicle collided with a motorcycle. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support her conviction, (2) the trial court abused its discretion and violated her sixth amendment right to present a defense by improperly precluding her from introducing into evidence portions of the medical records of the operator of the motorcycle, Kevin Tardiff, (3) the court erred in admitting into evidence Tardiff's death certificate and, in doing so, violated her sixth amendment right to confrontation because the document contained testimonial hearsay, and (4) the court violated her sixth amendment right to conflict free representation when it failed to inquire into the actual conflict of interest created by defense counsel when he provided the state with evidence harmful to the defendant. We are unpersuaded by each of the defendant's claims and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC44098 - Medical Device Solutions, LLC v. Aferzon (Breach of Contract; CUTPA; "The defendants claim that the trial court improperly concluded (1) that the parties entered into a definite and enforceable contract to make the subject payments in exchange for the plaintiff's work, (2) that payments received by the defendants for the sale and/or licensing of an anterior spinal fusion device known as the Solus, which was based on a design patented by the individual defendant after his alleged contract with the plaintiff had been entered into, were covered by the contract, (3) that all statutes of limitations applicable to the plaintiff's claims for relief in this case were tolled under the fraudulent concealment doctrine and/or the continuing course of conduct doctrine, and (4) that the plaintiff was entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendants under CUTPA based upon the defendants' bad faith breaches of the parties' alleged contract. The plaintiff cross appeals from the trial court's judgment awarding it offer of compromise interest on its judgment against the defendants, arguing that the court improperly calculated the amount of such interest to which it was entitled. On the defendants' appeal, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court. On the plaintiff's cross appeal, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings with instructions to recalculate the amount of offer of compromise interest to which the plaintiff is entitled in accordance with this opinion.")

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

AC42452 - Anketell v. Kulldorff ("The defendant, Martin Kulldorff, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Beth E. Anketell. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) erred by failing to identify the presumptive child support obligation under the child support guidelines, as set forth in § 46b-215a-1 et seq. of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (guidelines), before entering a support order based on a deviation, (2) erred in calculating the parties' incomes, (3) erred in awarding the plaintiff a lump sum property settlement, (4) abused its discretion in awarding appellate attorney's fees to the plaintiff, and (5) abused its discretion in entering its custodial orders. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC43391 - McNamara v. McNamara ("In this postdissolution matter, the defendant, Kristine McNamara, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting her attorney's motion to withdraw his appearance, denying her motion for a continuance, and granting the motion of the plaintiff, James M. McNamara, for modification of certain custody orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in granting her attorney's motion to withdraw, (2) violated her right to procedural due process in denying her motion for a continuance, (3) abused its discretion in denying her motion for a continuance, and (4) abused its discretion in awarding the plaintiff final decision-making authority on issues concerning the health, treatment, and therapeutic providers of the parties' children. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC43391 Dissent - McNamara v. McNamara

AC43482 - Tannenbaum v. Tannenbaum ("The plaintiff, Leonard Tannenbaum, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for contempt filed by the defendant, Stacey Tannenbaum. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly modified the existing travel related child custody order by requiring the plaintiff to accompany his minor child on any airline travel, except in the case of an emergency. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that (1) the court's order denying the defendant's motion for contempt constituted a modification because the existing travel related child custody order permitted the child's nanny or driver to accompany the child on air travel in lieu of the plaintiff not only in emergency circumstances, but also when the plaintiff had a health, work, or other family commitment, and (2) the alleged modification was improper because the court did not make findings that a substantial or material change had occurred, that the existing order was no longer in the child's best interests, or that the modification was in the child's best interests. We disagree that the court's order constituted a modification and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC43482 Dissent - Tannenbaum v. Tannenbaum

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42834 - Ulanoff v. Becker Salon, LLC ("The plaintiff, Andrea Ulanoff, who alleges she was injured when she walked into a set of glass doors, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, Becker Salon, LLC (salon), and Becker Chicaiza. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred when it precluded her from (1) introducing into evidence a photograph of the entrance to the salon, showing see-through glass doors with no lettering or handles, that was on the salon's website, and (2) questioning her witness, Vanessa Savio, about the appearance of the glass doors on a date previous to the date of the plaintiff's accident. She further claims that the cumulative effect of the court's erroneous rulings was harmful and likely affected the outcome of the trial. We agree with the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC43262 - JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Malick ("The defendant Abu Hashem Malick appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association. On appeal, Malick claims that the court erred as a matter of law when, despite his objections to some of the calculations set forth in the plaintiff's affidavit of debt, it accepted the affidavit and relied on it to establish the amount of the defendant's indebtedness. Because we are bound by our Supreme Court's decision in Burritt Mutual Savings Bank of New Britain v. Tucker, 183 Conn. 369, 374–75, 439 A.2d 396 (1981), we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20473 - Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank ("This appeal arises out of a dispute between the plaintiff, Meribear Productions, Inc., doing business as Meridith Baer and Associates, and the defendants, Joan E. Frank and George A. Frank, in connection with a contract for the design, decoration, and staging for sale of the defendants' residence at 3 Cooper Lane in Westport. After the plaintiff staged the defendants' home by installing rental furniture, antiques, art, and home décor for the purpose of enhancing its appearance and, thereby, its prospects for sale, the defendants defaulted on their contractual payment obligations to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a California company, obtained a default judgment against the defendants in its home state and thereafter filed an action in the Superior Court in Connecticut seeking to enforce the California judgment or, alternatively, to recover under the theories of breach of contract or quantum meruit. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against George Frank on the count seeking to enforce the California judgment and in favor of the plaintiff against Joan Frank on the breach of contract count. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the California judgment is unenforceable for lack of personal jurisdiction, (2) the contract is unenforceable under the Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA), General Statutes § 42-134a et seq., and (3) the amount of damages awarded by the trial court was improper. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• SC20473 Dissent - Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 12, for September 21, 2021 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 338: Connecticut Reports (Pages 154 - 310)
• Volume 338: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 207: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 551 - 707)
• Volume 207: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 207: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC43285 - NRT New England, LLC v. Longo ("The defendants Salvatore R. Longo, Anthony Longo, Salvatore Longo & Sons, LLC, and the estate of Salvatore Longo, Jr., appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, NRT New England, LLC, doing business as Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage, relating to the sale of commercial property owned by the defendants. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in (1) concluding that the plaintiff had standing to bring an action for a real estate commission, (2) finding that the defendants breached the operative exclusive right to sell listing agreement, and (3) concluding that the defendants had violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. Although we disagree with the defendants' standing claim, we agree with their second and third claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43158 - Onofrio v. Mineri ("In this new home construction dispute, the defendants Joseph Mineri (Mineri) and Timberwood Homes, LLC (Timberwood), appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiffs, Daniel Onofrio and Elsie Onofrio, against (1) Mineri and Timberwood on the plaintiffs' claim pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (2) Timberwood on the plaintiffs' claim pursuant to the New Home Warranties Act (warranties act), General Statutes § 47-116 et seq. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42244 - United Concrete Products, Inc. v. NJR Construction, LLC ("This appeal arises out of the delayed construction of a bridge over the Hockanum River on Route 74 in Vernon. The plaintiff subcontractor, United Concrete Products, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered as to certain claims in favor of the defendants, NJR Construction, LLC (NJR), as general contractor, and Aegis Security Insurance Company (Aegis), as surety. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly: (1) calculated its award of damages to NJR on the breach of contract count of NJR's counterclaim; (2) concluded that NJR did not fail to mitigate its damages; (3) failed to render judgment against Aegis on the plaintiff's payment bond claim and award interest and attorney's fees pursuant to General Statutes § 49-42; (4) failed to render judgment against NJR on the plaintiff's claim for interest and attorney's fees pursuant to General Statutes § 49-41a; (5) concluded that the plaintiff's conduct violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.; and (6) awarded attorney's fees to NJR pursuant to the parties' purchase order agreement. Addressing these various contentions, we agree with the plaintiff's third claim and reverse the judgment of the trial court only with respect to count three of the complaint. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.")

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

AC43069 - State v. Yury G. ("The defendant, Yury G., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims: (1) the trial court incorrectly determined that the defendant's request to charge the jury on the 'lesser included offense' of creating a public disturbance, an infraction, failed to meet the test articulated in State v. Whistnant, 179 Conn. 576, 588, 427 A.2d 414 (1980); (2) the statutory scheme that gives the prosecutor complete discretion in choosing whether to charge the defendant with an infraction or with a misdemeanor that contains identical elements to the infraction violates her state and federal constitutional right to due process of law and to equal protection under the law; (3) the statutory scheme that gives the prosecutor complete discretion in choosing whether to charge the defendant with an infraction or with a misdemeanor that contains identical elements to the infraction violates the separation of powers provision of the Connecticut constitution; and (4) the court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that it could consider the affidavit of the defendant's husband (H) only for impeachment purposes despite having admitted the affidavit as a full exhibit. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC43382 - Kloiber v. Jellen ("In this property dispute among neighbors, the self-represented plaintiffs, Alfred J. Kloiber and Melanie McNichol, appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants, Chris Jellen and Linda Jellen. On appeal, the plaintiffs raise a variety of issues related to the court's disposition of their trespass, private nuisance, negligence, and statutory negligence claims. Following supplemental briefing by the parties on the issue of standing, we conclude that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite standing to maintain this action. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to render a judgment of dismissal.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC43534 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v Cantillon ("The plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (plaintiff commission), appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing its administrative appeal from the final decision of the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (defendant commission). On appeal, the plaintiff commission argues that the Superior Court erred in dismissing its administrative appeal because the human rights referee (referee) and the Superior Court (1) misinterpreted and misapplied Patino v. Birken Mfg. Co., 304 Conn. 679, 41 A.3d 1013 (2012), in the calculation of emotional distress damages, and (2) misapplied the factors set forth in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Harrison v. Greco, CHRO No. 7930433 (June 3, 1985) pp. 7–8, in the determination of emotional distress damages. We are unpersuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

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

AC43958 - Strazza Building & Construction, Inc. v Harris (Foreclosure of mechanic's lien; "The defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Strazza Building & Construction, Inc. (Strazza). The defendants claim that the court improperly denied their motion for summary judgment, which was predicated on a claim that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In the alternative, the defendants claim that the court erred in failing to find that Strazza's claims fail as a result of the application of collateral estoppel. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20246 - State v. Correa (Search and Seizure; Motion to Suppress; Whether warrantless search conducted by canine sniff outside door of defendant's motel room constituted an illegal search under state constitution; Whether police officer's warrantless visual sweep of defendant's motel room justified by exigent circumstances; "The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution prohibits the police from conducting a warrantless canine sniff of the exterior door to a motel room for the purpose of detecting the presence of illegal drugs inside the room.

We conclude that the canine sniff was a search subject to the warrant requirement of article first, § 7, of the state constitution and that the failure of the police to obtain a warrant before conducting the canine sniff violated that requirement. We also conclude that the case must be remanded to the trial court so that the state may be afforded the opportunity to adduce additional evidence concerning its claims relative to the canine sniff under the independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines, claims that, if proven, would obviate the illegality of the canine sniff and thereby eliminate the need for suppression of the evidence ultimately seized pursuant to the search warrant. We finally conclude that, although the visual sweep was not justified by exigent circumstances, the state also must be afforded the opportunity to present additional evidence to establish, in light of our determination regarding the impropriety of the canine sniff, that the constitutional infirmity of the visual sweep is obviated by the independent source doctrine.

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

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 11, for September 14, 2021 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 338: Connecticut Reports (Pages 66 - 154)
• Volume 338: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 207: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 361 - 551)
• Volume 207: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases

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

SC20351 - State v. LeRoya M. (Murder; Whether trial court improperly rejected defendant's affirmative defense that she was not guilty of murder by reason of mental disease or defect; "The defendant, LeRoya M., was charged with two counts of murder in violation General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) for killing her seven year old son, D, and her six year old daughter, A. The defendant elected a trial before a three judge court; see General Statutes § 54-82 (a) and (b); and presented expert testimony in support of an affirmative defense of lack of capacity due to mental disease or defect pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-13, otherwise known as the insanity defense. The state presented expert testimony at trial to rebut the defendant's insanity defense. The trial court ultimately did not find the defendant's expert testimony to be reliable or credible and, as a result, concluded that the defendant had "failed to satisfy her burden of proving that, as a result of mental disease or defect, she lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to control her conduct within the requirements of the law." On appeal, the defendant claims that no rational fact finder reasonably could have rejected her insanity defense on the present factual record. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

AC42648 - Vossbrinck v. Hobart ("The self-represented plaintiff, Karl Paul Vossbrinck, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Brian Hobart. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant, as a state marshal, was entitled to sovereign immunity, (2) concluded that the defendant was entitled to statutory immunity pursuant to General Statutes § 6-38a (b), and (3) failed to address his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. We agree with the plaintiff that the defendant was not entitled to sovereign immunity. We nevertheless conclude that the court properly determined that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the defendant is entitled to statutory immunity under § 6-38a (b). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Rights,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC43215 - Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Solid Surface, LLC ("An essential element of a claim of vexatious litigation is that the prior civil action underlying the claim must have terminated in favor of the proponent of the claim.See Blake v. Levy, 191 Conn. 257, 263, 464 A.2d 52 (1983). The dispositive issue in the present appeal is whether a prior action that ended in the summary dismissal of the action by agreement of the parties constitutes such a favorable disposition. We conclude that it does not.

The defendant and cross claim plaintiff, Connecticut Solid Surface, LLC (CT Solid Surface), appeals from the summary judgment rendered on its vexatious litigation cross claim by the court in favor of the cross claim defendant, Attorney Howard Kantrovitz. It claims that the court improperly concluded that Kantrovitz was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because CT Solid Surface had failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the prior action underlying the vexatious litigation cross claim had terminated in its favor, particularly in light of undisputed evidence that the parties to the prior action had reached a settlement that resulted in the court's dismissal of that action. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44055 - Barnes v. Greenwich Hospital ("This appeal arises out of a medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiffs, Lori Barnes (Barnes) and Ray Barnes, against the defendants, Felice Zwas, Greenwich Hospital, and the Center for Gastrointestinal Medicine of Fairfield and Westchester, P.C. (Center for Gastrointestinal Medicine), for an injury Barnes sustained during a colonoscopy procedure. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their complaint for failure to attach a written opinion letter authored by a similar health care provider as required by General Statutes § 52-190a (a). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to comply with § 52-190a because the amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs as of right pursuant to Practice Book § 10-59, to remedy their prior failure to attach a written opinion letter, was filed after the statute of limitations had expired and sought to attach an opinion letter that did not exist at the time the action was commenced. We disagree with the plaintiffs' claim and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Medical Malpractice Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43685 - Shaheer v. Commissioner of Correction (Denial of petition; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; defense of duress; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

…Because the court thoroughly addressed the petitioner’s argument raised in this appeal that Lorenzen’s representation was constitutionally ineffective, we adopt its well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts and the applicable law on that issue.”)

• AC43685 Appendix

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

AC42866 - 2772 BPR, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Zoning appeal; denial of site development plan application; "The plaintiff, 2772 BPR, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of North Branford (commission), in which the commission denied the plaintiff's site development plan application to build a facility to be used for the bulk storage of propane. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by (1) upholding the commission's consideration of off-site traffic concerns, the preparedness of municipal services, and the potential impact on property values when conducting an administrative review of its site development plan application, and (2) raising independently a reason to deny the appeal that was not one of the bases for the commission's decision to deny the application. We agree with the plaintiff's first claim, and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to render judgment sustaining the plaintiff's appeal and directing the commission to approve the plaintiff's site development plan application.")

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