AC47519 - Branford Quick Mart, LLC v. Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership (“The plaintiffs, Branford Quick Mart, LLC, Seaport Quick Mart, LLC, and Dayville Quick Mart, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Aldin Associates Limited Partnership, in this action alleging that the defendant’s termination of lease agreements was in violation of the Connecticut Petroleum Franchise Act (petroleum franchise act), General Statutes §42-133j et seq. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly rendered judgment for the defendant because the protections of the petroleum franchise act apply to the contractual relationships between the parties. We affirm the judgment of the trial court trial court.”)

• AC47519 Dissent - Branford Quick Mart, LLC v. Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC48053 - Villwell Builders I, LLC v. Pereira (“The present appeal arises out of four separate actions commenced by the plaintiff home improvement contractor, Villwell Builders I, LLC, against the defendant condominium owners, Linda Biagioni, Andrew Biagioni, Phil Pereira, Gina Pereira, Karrie Sadler and Julia Wexler. The four cases were consolidated for trial. The plaintiff appeals from the judgments rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants on their respective counterclaims for breach of contract and negligence. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) found that the plaintiff materially breached the contracts by and between the plaintiff and the respective defendants regarding certain construction work to be completed on their condominiums; (2) calculated damages on the breach of contract counterclaims; and (3) found that the plaintiff breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded damages on the claim when no such claim was pleaded. We conclude that, although the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff breached the contracts was not clearly erroneous, it improperly calculated damages for the breach of contract counterclaims. We therefore reverse the judgments of the trial court as to the awards of damages, vacate those awards, and remand the cases with direction to award nominal damages to the defendants on their breach of contract counterclaims.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC48365 - Evexia Holdings, Inc. v. Geurts (“The plaintiffs, Evexia Holdings, Inc. (Evexia), Evexia Diagnostics, Inc. (EDI), and Kevin K. Bodling, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court denying their application to vacate an arbitration award rendered in favor of the defendant, Dale A. Geurts, and granting the defendant’s motion to confirm the award. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly rejected their argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by imposing a constructive trust on certain shares of stock owned by Bodling that the plaintiffs assert were not directly at issue in the arbitration. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 46918 - Cohen & Wolf, P.C. v. Netter (“In this appeal arising from a dispute regarding unpaid legal fees, the defendant, Donald Netter, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Cohen and Wolf, P.C., granting the plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denying the defendant’s application to vacate the arbitration award. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) confirmed the award in its entirety because the present proceeding is barred by a previous arbitration proceeding under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, and (2) confirmed, as part of the award, the award of the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and expenses for the previous arbitration. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC21082 - Duso v. Groton, “The question we must decide in the present appeal is whether the plaintiffs, retired police officers of the town of Groton, are entitled under a 2008 pension agreement to receive health savings account (HSA) contributions from the town, like the town now pays to its active police officers under a successive collective bargaining agreement, which incorporates the same 2008 pension agreement. The Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiffs are, holding that the provision of the 2008 pension agreement entitling retirees to the ‘‘nature and scope of coverages, including but not limited to deductibles . . . in effect for active [p]olice [o]fficers’’ extended to the HSA contributions that are paid to active police officers. See Duso v. Groton, 228 Conn. App. 390, 423–24, 325 A.3d 295 (2024). We granted the town’s petition for certification to appeal and now reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”

• SC21082 - Dissent

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47443 - Ashe v. Yale University (“The plaintiffs, Victor H. Ashe and Donald G. Glascoff, Jr., alumni of the defendant, Yale University, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion for summary judgment, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissing their claim alleging ultra vires acts in violation of the Connecticut Revised Nonstock Corporation Act (act), General Statutes § 33-1000 et seq. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the court incorrectly determined that the plaintiffs lack standing on the basis that they are not third-party beneficiaries of the defendant’s charter, and (2) granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss their ultra vires claim because the court improperly determined that alumni are not members within the meaning of the act and, thus, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47825 - Bogda v. Bochenek (“The plaintiff, Robin Bogda, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendant Brian Bochenek, executor of the estate of Barbara H. Uterstaedt. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in misconstruing the term ‘‘indirect’’ claims, the court improperly determined (1) that the plaintiff lacked standing and (2) there were no genuine issues of material fact that the defendant did not breach the terms of the parties’ agreement to release each other from any lawsuits and claims. We determine that the plaintiff has standing and reverse the judgment of the trial court rendering summary judgment in the defendant’s favor.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47341 - Bay Advance, LLC v. Halajian (“The self-represented defendant, Barry Stuart Halajian, doing business as Industrial Electric Company, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement filed by the plaintiff, Bay Advance, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly determined that the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46314 - Maefair Health Care Center, Inc. v. Noka ("The plaintiff, Maefair Health Care Center, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application for a prejudgment remedy filed against Susan Noka, the conservator of the person and estate of Patricia N. Erts. On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court incorrectly concluded that General Statutes § 52-278a did not permit the plaintiff to attach the decedent's interest in certain real property. We agree and reverse the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Probate Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC48111 - Vermont Aerospace Industries, LLC v. Schwoeri (“The plaintiff, Vermont Aerospace Industries, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application to ‘‘partially vacate, correct, and/or modify’’ an arbitration award and granting the motion for order confirming that award filed by the defendant, Lawrence W. Schwoeri. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied its application and granted the defendant’s motion for order because the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law and violated public policy. The plaintiff alternatively contends that the court improperly declined to modify the manner in which the damages awarded to the defendant must be paid. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• AC48111 Appendix - Vermont Aerospace Industries, LLC v. Schwoeri

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

AC 47026- Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc. "The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court limiting his recovery of costs pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72 to statutory, taxable costs. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that costs recoverable under § 31-72 are limited to statutory, taxable costs rather than all reasonable and necessary costs. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant alleging breach of contract, a violation of General Statutes §§ 31-71b and 31-72 for failure to timely pay wages, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of the termination of his employment with the defendant. This court thereafter affirmed the judgment of the trial court.”

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47154- Cruz v. Waterbury "The plaintiff, Emmanuel Cruz, a former Waterbury police officer whose employment was terminated after he suffered a work-related injury that rendered him unable to return to full-time police work, brought the underlying combined administrative appeal and breach of contract action against the defendants, the city of Waterbury (city) and the Retirement Board of the City of Waterbury (board), challenging the denial of his application for a disability pension. The plaintiff now appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the trial court (1) committed plain error by failing to consider and analyze General Statutes § 31-71f (a), despite the parties' failure to raise that statute in their arguments before the court, (2) improperly denied, as to the board, and dismissed, as to the city, count one of his complaint asserting an administrative appeal from the board's denial of his application for disability retirement and pension benefits, and (3) improperly denied, as to the city, and dismissed, as to the board, count two of his complaint asserting a breach of the collective bargaining agreement that governed the terms of his employment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court."

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

AC47129 - Curto v. Hartmann (“The defendants, Robert D. Hartmann, Sr. (Hartmann), and HSGCHG Investments, LLC (HSGCHG), appeal, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Angelo Curto, on his claims of fraud and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42- 110a et seq. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court (1) erred in tolling the statutes of limitations governing the plaintiff’s claims and (2) abused its discretion in awarding excessive punitive damages to the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court correctly determined that § 52-595 tolled the statutes of limitations governing the plaintiff’s fraud and CUTPA claims, as sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that the defendants intentionally concealed from the plaintiff the facts necessary to establish his claims and, due to the defendants’ conduct in repeatedly and falsely representing to the plaintiff that he would be repaid, the plaintiff did not become aware of his causes of action until almost two years after the defendant H had knowingly misappropriated the loaned funds.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20829 - State v. Foster ("The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether, for purposes of an equal protection challenge, an insanity acquittee who is subject to a petition under General Statutes § 17a-593 for continued commitment to the custody of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board) following the expiration of the maximum period of commitment is similarly situated to a mentally ill prison inmate who is the subject of a petition for civil commitment pursuant to General Statutes §§ 17a-498 (c) and 17a-515 (civilly committed inmate). We conclude that an insanity acquittee who is subject to a petition for continued commitment, regardless of his clinical progress, is not similarly situated to a civilly committed inmate for purposes of the equal protection guarantees under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution.

The acquittee, Franklin Foster, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting the state's petition to extend his commitment to the custody of the board. See State v. Foster, 217 Conn. App. 476, 478, 506, 289 A.3d 191 (2023). On appeal, the acquittee claims, among other things, that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that (1) as an insanity acquittee, he was not similarly situated to a civilly committed inmate for purposes of a challenge to § 17a-593 under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, and (2) the trial court's finding, pursuant to § 17a-593 (c), that he was mentally ill and dangerous was supported by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC20829 Concurrence - State v. Foster

SC21023 - State v. Guild ("This appeal requires us to consider whether the release of an insanity acquittee from the custody of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board) moots his pending appeal challenging the trial court's order extending his commitment to the board that was issued on July 11, 2023 (2023 commitment order). In this appeal, the acquittee, Stephen Guild, has raised several factual and constitutional challenges to his continued commitment under General Statutes § 17a-593 (c). While this appeal was pending, on December 2, 2024, the state filed a new petition that would have extended the acquittee's commitment to the custody of the board beyond the acquittee's discharge date of March 20, 2025 (2024 petition). After conducting a hearing on the 2024 petition pursuant to § 17a-593 (d), the board filed a report dated January 22, 2025, in which it found that the acquittee was no longer a danger to himself or others as to require supervision by the board and recommended that the trial court deny the state's petition for further commitment. The state did not challenge the board's finding, and it withdrew the 2024 petition, which resulted in the acquittee's discharge from the custody of the board on March 20, 2025.

These events, which occurred during the pendency of this appeal, have rendered this appeal moot. Put simply, given that the acquittee has been released from the custody of the board on March 20, 2025, we cannot grant him any practical relief from the 2023 commitment order. Further, the acquittee has not established that there are any legally cognizable collateral consequences resulting from the 2023 commitment order, or that this is a matter that is capable of repetition, yet evading review. The acquittee was, however, precluded from fully litigating the correctness of the 2023 commitment order through no fault of his own, insofar as it was rendered moot when the state withdrew the 2024 petition. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal but vacate the 2023 commitment order.")

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

AC47522 - United Cleaning & Restoration, LLC v. Koskerides (Breach of contract; “The defendants claim that the court made clearly erroneous factual findings in connection with its conclusions that the plaintiff had proved its breach of contract claim and that the defendants had failed to prove their breach of contract claim, and improperly calculated the plaintiff’s award of attorney’s fees. We disagree with the defendants’ first claim and, therefore, affirm the judgment in the plaintiff’s favor on its breach of contract claim and on the defendants’ breach of contract counterclaim. Because the court may have improperly awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees that the plaintiff was not authorized to receive under the parties’ contract, we conclude that we must vacate the award of attorney’s fees and remand the case for a new hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees consistent with this opinion.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC21072 - Clinton v. Aspinwall (Breach of contract; “The defendants’ principal claim on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly interpreting an exculpatory clause in CCP’s operating agreement as imposing affirmative duties on the defendants and instructing the jury in accordance with that flawed interpretation. They also claim that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the plaintiff’s expert, Kenneth Pia, to testify about CCP’s capital reserve. We agree with the defendants on their first claim but disagree with them on their second claim. Because the error on their first claim was not harmless, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.”)

• Concurrence

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

AC47509 - Faryniarz v. Ramirez ("Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford. The plaintiff judgment creditor appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the defendant judgment debtor’s motion to exempt from execution certain accounts at a financial institution containing retirement funds. We conclude that, pursuant to § 52-367b (i), the plaintiff had seven days from the rendering of the court’s March 8, 2024 order to appeal to this court and, therefore, the plaintiff’s appeal on April 1, 2024, was not timely filed. Accordingly, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.")

AC47514 - Pearlman v. Gervolino ("The plaintiff landlord appealed from the trial court’s judgment with respect to its award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant tenant on the count of his counterclaim alleging violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) in connection with the plaintiff’s handling of his security deposit. In calculating the defendant’s award of attorney’s fees, however, the court included in its award all the costs and fees set forth in the defendant’s affidavit. Because the court did not limit its award of attorney’s fees to those fees incurred on the defendant’s CUTPA claim, but, rather, expressly awarded the defendant all ‘‘attorney’s fees and [costs incurred] in the defense of the plaintiff’s action and the prosecution of his counterclaims,’’ we conclude that the court abused its discretion in calculating the amount of attorney’s fees and costs the defendant was entitled to recover under CUTPA. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new hearing on the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47415 - SMDV 1, LLC v. 459-461 Pacific Street, LLC (“This appeal arises from an action brought by the plaintiff, SMDV 1, LLC, against the defendants, 459-461 Pacific Street, LLC (Pacific Street), and Frank Steinegger, related to Pacific Street’s notice of termination of a contract for the sale and purchase of real property known as 459-461 Pacific Street in Stamford (property). The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court correctly determined that the contract was rendered unenforceable by the termination of a separate ground lease and purchase agreement between two different entities. After our review of the language of the contract, we conclude that the trial court’s determination cannot stand. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants following a court trial and remand this case for further proceedings.”)

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

AC47692- Gancsos v. Israel "This appeal arises from a dispute between owners of abutting properties located in Cheshire. The defendants, Lior Israel and Perla Israel, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Gancsos, in the plaintiff's action alleging trespass and breach of contract. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) found that the defendants trespassed on the plaintiff's property and (2) ordered injunctive relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court."

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

AC47029 - Fischer v. M&T Bank, N.A. (“The plaintiff, Alan Fischer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action for, inter alia, breach of contract against the defendants, M&T Bank, N.A. (M&T Bank), formerly known as People’s United Bank, N.A. (People’s United), and two former bank employees, Kenneth Nuzzolo and Virgilio Lopez, Jr. On appeal, the plaintiff raises a number of claims related to the court’s dismissal of his action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.”)

AC46784 - Waterbury v. Watertown (“The defendant, the town of Watertown, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiff, the city of Waterbury. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that, in the absence of a contractual agreement, General Statutes §§ 7-2391 and 7-2552 authorize the plaintiff to set the rates it charges properties located in the defendant municipality for the continued use of its water and sewer services, (2) concluded that those statutes impliedly authorize the plaintiff to sue the defendant to collect unpaid water and sewer service charges incurred by those properties, and (3) found the plaintiff’s water and sewer service rates to be reasonable and equitable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions