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.
Civil Rights

Civil Rights Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5088

AC44192 - Francis v. Briatico ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ernest Francis, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Captain Bryan Viger, Lieutenant Wilkens and Correction Officer Briatico, all current or former employees of the Department of Correction (department). The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his rights under the eighth amendment to the United States constitution by virtue of the manner in which they responded to an electrical fire in the plaintiff's housing unit at the Cheshire Correctional Institution (Cheshire), where he was incarcerated. On appeal, he contends that the court applied an unduly exacting legal standard—one that required him to prove that the defendants had acted in bad faith and with the malicious intent to harm him—in holding that the defendants' conduct did not violate the eighth amendment as a matter of law. Because we conclude that the court correctly determined that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment, we affirm the judgment.")


Civil Rights Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5079

AC43845 - Miller v. Doe ("The defendant Joshua Medina, a central transportation unit officer for the Department of Correction (department), appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion for summary judgment in the action brought by the self-represented plaintiff, Omar J. Miller, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States constitution. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion for summary judgment because he is entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff's claim. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5058

AC43887 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Cortes v. Valentin (Housing discrimination; "The defendant, Margaret Valentin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), and the intervening plaintiff, Julissa Cortes, in this action alleging housing discrimination in violation of General Statutes 46a-64c (a). The defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's conclusion that she had violated 46a-64c (a) by engaging in discriminatory housing practices, (2) the court abused its discretion in awarding Cortes compensatory damages for emotional distress and (3) the court (a) improperly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to denying her application for a writ of audita querela and (b) abused its discretion in denying her motion for reargument and reconsideration of that application. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Civil Rights Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5027

AC44261 - Wine v. Mulligan (The self-represented plaintiff, Daniel Wine, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it granted the defendants' motion to strike his complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court erred in granting this motion because the stricken complaint adequately stated a claim that the defendants had violated his constitutional right of access to the courts. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4993

AC44570 - Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (Employment discrimination; whether trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's appeal and affirmed decision of defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; "The plaintiff, the Board of Education of the City of Waterbury, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal and affirming the decision of the named defendant, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), which concluded that the plaintiff had discriminated against the defendant Cynthia Leonard on the basis of her physical disability by failing to interview and promote her. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the trial court improperly affirmed the commission's award of back pay because the award was not supported by substantial evidence and (2) the commission exceeded its statutory authority in awarding compensatory damages. We disagree with the plaintiff's first claim and decline to review the second claim because it is unpreserved. We, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Civil Rights Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4972

AC43753 - Campbell v. Porter ( False arrest in violation of violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; civil conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3); “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the jury erred in returning a defendants’ verdict on his false arrest claim against Jones and the city, (2) the court erred in striking his civil conspiracy claim against all of the defendants, and (3) the jury erred in not awarding him punitive damages despite returning a plaintiff’s verdict on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Porter and the church. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Landlord/Tenant Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4944

SC20574 - Lopez v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. ("In this appeal, we consider the standard for determining whether a statement made in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling violates General Statutes § 46a-64c (a) (3) by indicating a 'preference, limitation, or discrimination,' or an 'intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination,' on the basis of an individual's 'lawful source of income . . . .' The plaintiff, Carmen Lopez, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. (Raveis), Sarah Henry, a licensed real estate salesperson, and Anthony Vaccaro and Eve Vaccaro, in this action alleging housing discrimination in violation of § 46a-64c (a). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court, in considering whether Henry violated § 46a-64c (a) (3) by making certain statements in the course of renting an apartment owned by the Vaccaros, improperly considered whether Henry had the subjective intent to discriminate on the basis of lawful source of income when she made those statements. The plaintiff specifically contends that she is entitled to judgment in her favor because (1) Henry's statements were facially discriminatory, rendering her subjective intent irrelevant as a matter of law, and (2) even if we were to conclude that Henry's statements were not facially discriminatory, the trial court nevertheless incorrectly determined that the statements, considered in context, did not convey an impermissible preference. We conclude that, although the trial court applied the proper legal standard in considering the plaintiff's claims under § 46a-64c (a) (3), its ultimate conclusion as to liability on the facts of this case was clearly erroneous with respect to Henry. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4818

SC20538 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLC (Sex Discrimination; Whether Women Only Workout Area in Gym Amounted to Sex Discrimination Prohibited by General Statutes § 46a-64; Whether Trial Court Properly Found Activity Exempt. "This appeal presents a significant question of first impression with respect to whether the Public Accommodation Act, General Statutes § 46a-64, contains an implied customer gender privacy exception to its general prohibition against sex based discrimination. The plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal from the decision of the commission's human rights referee (referee), who found that the defendants Edge Fitness, LLC (Edge Fitness) and Club Camel, Inc., Bloomfield, doing business as Club Fitness (Club Fitness), did not engage in discriminatory public accommodations practices. On appeal, the commission claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that women's only workout areas in otherwise public gyms did not violate § 46a-64 because that statute contains an implied customer gender privacy exception. We conclude that the exceptions to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodations are limited to those expressly provided by the plain language of § 46a-64 and, therefore, that there is no implied customer gender privacy exception to the statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Civil Rights Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4813

AC43889 - Stanley v. Barone ("The self-represented plaintiff, Steven K. Stanley, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, employees of the Department of Correction (department), on the basis of statutory and qualified immunity. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his complaint because the immunities relied on by the court do not bar his claims brought against the defendants in their individual capacities. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Civil Rights Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4637

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.")


Declaratory Judgment Law Appellate Court Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4619

AC43888 - Wright v. Dzurenda ("The self-represented plaintiff, Ian Wright, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, dismissing count four of his complaint, brought against the defendant Bonnie Hakins, a counselor for the Department of Correction (department), in her individual capacity, on the ground that the plaintiff's action is barred for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred (1) in determining that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and (2) in considering the defendant's special defense that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because the defendant had waived that special defense. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4275

AC43794 - Jan G. v. Semple ("The self-represented plaintiff, Jan G., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action against the defendants, state employees of the Department of Correction (department). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over (1) his claims against the defendants in their individual capacities on the basis of statutory immunity pursuant to General Statutes § 4-165, and (2) his claims against the defendants in their official capacities on the basis of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4152

AC41832 - Sosa v. Robinson (Alleged deprivation of plaintiff's federal constitutional rights; "The plaintiff, Andres Sosa, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, dismissing certain counts of his complaint in which he sought compensatory relief from the defendant, Dave Robinson, a correctional commissary lead operator at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution (MacDougall), in his individual capacity and rendering summary judgment on the remainder of the complaint in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his claims seeking compensatory relief against the defendant in his individual capacity and erred in concluding that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the remainder of the plaintiff's complaint due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. In addition to arguing that the court's subject matter jurisdiction analysis was correct, the defendant argues in the alternative that the court correctly rendered summary judgment in his favor because the plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law. We agree with the plaintiff that the court had jurisdiction over the claims in which he seeks compensatory relief against the defendant in his individual capacity. We agree, however, with the defendant's alternative argument that the plaintiff's claims fail on their merits as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Penn, Michele

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3903

AC41989 - Jolley v. Vinton ("The self-represented plaintiff, Carlton Jolley, appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Captain Brian Vinton, a former administrative captain at the Enfield Correctional Institution (Enfield), in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendant retaliated against the plaintiff for providing legal advice to his fellow inmates while incarcerated at Enfield.Because we conclude that the trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove a causal connection between his conduct and the alleged retaliation was not clearly erroneous, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3447

SC19993 - Mangiafico v. Farmington ("The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether a claim brought in state court alleging a deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be dismissed for failure to exhaust state administrative remedies. The plaintiff . . . is a homeowner who was the subject of a series of enforcement actions under a municipal blight ordinance in the town of Farmington. In 2013, the plaintiff commenced this state court action alleging, in relevant part, that the defendants' designation of his property as blighted, their assessment of daily punitive fines, and their imposition of municipal blight liens constituted an unconstitutional taking of his property in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and § 1983. The defendants successfully moved in the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's § 1983 claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he had not filed an appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 7-152c (g). The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. See Mangiafico v. Farmington, 173 Conn. App. 158, 177, 163 A.3d 689 (2017). . .

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed with respect to the plaintiff's § 1983 claims and the case is remanded to that court with direction to remand the case to the trial court with direction to deny the defendants' motion to dismiss as to the plaintiff's § 1983 claims and for further proceedings according to law.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3360

AC40612 - Colinet v. Brown (Alleged deprivation of plaintiff's federal constitutional rights; "In this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff, Jean Colinet, who is an inmate serving a sentence for murder, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, David Brown, a retired former director of correctional enterprises for the Department of Correction (department). The plaintiff claims that the court erred in rejecting his claims that his fourteenth amendment rights to due process and equal protection, and his first and fourteenth amendment right against retaliation were violated. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=484

AC38262 - Townsend v. Hardy ("The plaintiff, Timothy Townsend, Jr., brought this action against two prison officials, the defendants, Anita Hardy and John Riccio, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 claiming that they had violated his constitutional rights while he was confined at the Cheshire Correctional Institution. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the ground that none of their alleged misconduct rose to the level of a constitutional violation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


1