11/18/2009
Wilcox v. Webster Ins., Inc. - SC18317 (“The named plaintiff, David R. Wilcox, and the plaintiff Shaun A. Wilcox, appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against the defendant Acadia Insurance Company. The plaintiffs assert that the trial court improperly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The defendant responds that the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed on the alternative ground that the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant are moot.”) 11/16/2009
Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction - SC18315 ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly found that he had procedurally defaulted with regard to his claims challenging the sufficiency of his plea canvass and the state’s breach of his plea agreement that his sentences would be 'fully' concurrent. The petitioner also claims that the habeas court improperly determined that he was not entitled to one day of sentence credit under General Statutes § 18-98d (a) (2) (A). Finally, he claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that he had been deprived of his right to appeal because he had not been given notice of that right.") 11/9/2009
Marshall v. Sawicki SC18225 (Plaintiff retained defendant, a business broker to help him sell his catering business; fiduciary duty; ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant did not provide an adequate record for review to determine whether the trial court had shifted the burden of proof to the defendant to prove fair dealing?’’) 11/4/2009
State v. Grant - SC18177 (Attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of §§ 53a-134 (a) (4) and 53a-49 (a); carrying dangerous weapon in violation of § 53-206; commission of class A, B or C felony with firearm, namely a BB gun, in violation of § 53-202k and sufficient evidence to support jury's finding of violation; mandatory five year term, "In support of his claim, the defendant contends that only a weapon that discharges a shot by gunpowder constitutes a firearm under General Statutes § 53a-3 (19)".) 11/2/2009
Dinuzzo v. Dan Perkins Chevrolet Geo, Inc. - SC17869 (Workers' compensation; "The sole issue raised by this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly reversed the decision of the compensation review board (board) upholding the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner for the third district (commissioner), who awarded the plaintiff, Evana DiNuzzo, survivor’s benefits under General Statutes § 31-306 (a). The Appellate Court concluded that there were insufficient subordinate facts in the record to support the commissioner’s finding that the death of the plaintiff’s husband, James DiNuzzo (decedent), was causally related to a compensable injury and, therefore, that the plaintiff was not entitled to survivor’s benefits.") 10/30/2009Below are the juvenile law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2009:
-
AC29911 - In re Christopher B. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Christopher. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the department of children and families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify Christopher with her, (2) determined that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation and (3) relied on evidence of her history prior to 2005 and disregarded current evidence in reaching its findings.”)
-
AC29890 - In re G.S. (“This appeal underscores the sad distinction between willingness and ability to parent a child. The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to G, her minor child. She contends that the court (1) erroneously found that the department of children and families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with G, (2) failed to make that finding pursuant to the clear and convincing evidence standard and (3) erroneously found that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3).”)
-
AC30083 - In re Tremaine C. (“The respondent father appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor son, Tremaine. On appeal, the respondent claims that his constitutional due process rights to be present at trial and to confront witnesses were violated.”)
-
AC29565 - In re Jason S. (“The respondent, a minor child, appeals from the judgment of the trial court adjudicating him a delinquent for having committed the crimes of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly found that he had acted with the mental state necessary for the commission of sexual assault in the fourth degree.”)
-
AC30020 - In re Tremaine C. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor son, Tremaine. The respondent claims that the court improperly found that (1) she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation and (2) it would be in the best interest of the child to terminate her parental rights.”)
-
AC29796, AC29906 - Brownstein v. Spilke (Foreclosure; “In these consolidated appeals, the substitute plaintiff, J. Diamond Properties, LLC (Diamond), and the defendant Georgina Spilke appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying Diamond’s motion for a deficiency judgment as to the defendant Kenneth C. Spilke. In AC 29796, Diamond claims that the court improperly determined that it failed to prove the fair market value of the subject property as of the date title vested in Diamond following a judgment of foreclosure and that it would be inequitable to grant the deficiency judgment.”)
Below are the employment law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2009:
-
AC29172 - Perez v. D & L Tractor Trailer School (Hostile Work Environment, Vexatious Litigation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Attorney’s Fees. “The plaintiff claims that the court (1) abused its discretion with respect to several evidentiary rulings, (2) improperly permitted the defendant’s counterclaim to go to the jury and (3) improperly calculated the attorney’s fees it awarded her. In his cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and (2) awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees.”)
-
AC29830 - State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001 (“The plaintiff, the state of Connecticut, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying its application to vacate an arbitration award and granting the motion to confirm the award filed by the defendant, the Connecticut State Employees Association, SEIU Local 2001. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed or imperfectly execute his powers pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). We are unable to evaluate the plaintiff’s claim because we conclude that the arbitrator’s award is ambiguous.”)
-
AC28949, AC29922, AC30013 - Greci v. Parks (Automobile Accident; Negligence “On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court (1) improperly determined that the final judgment in this case was rendered on August 17, 2007, rather than June 8, 2007, and (2) abused its discretion in denying their motions to set aside the verdicts and for a new trial or, in the alternative, for additur, because (a) the court improperly had permitted the defendant to cross-examine Michael Greci with respect to certain medical records that were unrelated to his claimed injuries, (b) the court permitted the defendant’s counsel to make improper arguments to the jury and failed to deliver a requested curative instruction related to the improper closing arguments, and (c) the verdicts were inconsistent.”)
-
AC29962 - Buchanan v. Moreno (Automobile Accident; Negligence “In this negligence action, the defendants, Maria Moreno and Enaroy Simms, appeal following the trial court’s denial of their motion to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Marcia E. Buchanan. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court abused its discretion in failing to admit a particular photograph as a full exhibit. On the basis of this claimed evidential impropriety, the defendants also contend that the court improperly denied their motion to set aside the verdict.”)
-
AC30097 - Gardner Heights Health Care Center, Inc. v. Korolyshun (“The underlying action here, however, was not such a contract action but was a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, which is a tort claim. See Ahern v. Kappalumakkel, 97 Conn. App. 189, 192 n.3, 903 A.2d 266 (2006). Accordingly, because § 42-150bb is not applicable to the action at hand, the court properly denied the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.”)
-
AC29332 - Keller v. Beckenstein (“On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted (1) the motions for summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the first count as to whether the defendants were liable for a breach of contractual representations and warranties by commencing litigation against the plaintiffs, and (2) the motion to strike because the complaint sufficiently alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.”)
AC29856 - 418 Meadow Street Associates, LLC v. One Solution Services, LLC ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied its motion to dismiss because (1) the commencement of the action was not properly authorized in accordance with the plaintiff’s operating agreement, (2) the plaintiff failed to prove that the authorizing vote of one of its members was properly excluded under General Statutes § 34-187 (b) and (3) the plaintiff’s mortgagee had exercised its right to collect rents due from the defendant to the plaintiff pursuant to a previously executed assignment of leases and rentals.")
AC29796, AC29906 - Brownstein v. Spilke ("In AC 29796, Diamond claims that the court improperly determined that it failed to prove the fair market value of the subject property as of the date title vested in Diamond following a judgment of foreclosure and that it would be inequitable to grant the deficiency judgment. In AC 29906, Georgina Spilke contends that the defendant’s claim regarding the deficiency judgment is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.")
AC29404 - State v. Adams ("The defendant claims that the court improperly failed to return property that was seized from him in criminal docket number CR-05-0284632-S, a case in which a nolle prosequi was entered pursuant to a plea agreement involving a total of six cases against the defendant.")
AC29588 - Davis v. Commissioner of Correction ("He claims that the court improperly dismissed his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.")
AC29192 - Samuels v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly held that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the petition because Public Acts 2006, No. 06-152, § 5, which modified General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 52-466, unambiguously expanded the jurisdiction of the habeas court and eliminated the ‘‘in custody’’ requirement from subsection (a) (2) for those petitioners who claim a deprivation of liberty and who presently are confined in a correctional facility as a result of being convicted of a crime.")
AC30458 - Parker v. Commissioner of Correction ("In the case before us, the petitioner, Kaniyn Parker, appeals following the habeas court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction over the petition.")
AC29544 - Raynor v. Commissioner of Correction - ("The petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his trial counsel was not ineffective in (1) failing properly to prepare for and to investigate prior to trial and (2) failing to recall a certain witness in the criminal trial.")
Below is a list of criminal law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2009:
AC29404 - State v. Adams ("The defendant claims that the court improperly failed to return property that was seized from him in criminal docket number CR-05-0284632-S, a case in which a nolle prosequi was entered pursuant to a plea agreement involving a total of six cases against the defendant.") Dissent
Below is a list of medical malpractice Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2009:
AC29944 - Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc. ("The plaintiff, Richard Bennett, Jr., the administrator of the estate of the decedent, Richard Bennett, Sr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing in part his medical malpractice action against the defendants, New Milford Hospital, Inc. (hospital), and Frederick Lohse, a physician, on the basis of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the requirements of General Statutes § 52-190a. The plaintiff claims that because he attached to his complaint a good faith certificate from his attorney in addition to a letter from a similar health care provider stating the belief that there existed evidence of medical negligence, the court improperly granted Lohse’s motion to dismiss pursuant to § 52-190a (c).") 10/29/2009
Kaczynski v. Kaczynski - SC18235 ("Our resolution of this appeal makes clear that when a trial court opinion is silent as to the standard of proof applied, an appellate court is not the proper forum to first raise a claim that the trial court applied the wrong standard when that claim could have been raised in, and more fairly remedied by, a motion for articulation or reargument.") 10/28/2009
State v. Moore - SC17992 ("The state appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the conviction of the defendant....The state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the defendant’s sixth amendment right of confrontation under the United States constitution was violated when the trial court denied his motion to strike certain testimony that the state elicited during its redirect examination of James Brooks, a participant in the robbery and a prosecution witness who invoked his fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination before the assistant state’s attorney (prosecutor) completed his redirect examination, thus depriving the defense of the opportunity to question Brooks on recross-examination.")
10/26/2009State v. Fernando A. - SC18045, SC18103 ("In this public interest appeal, we consider the nature of the hearing that a defendant must receive prior to the issuance of a criminal protective order in a family violence case (criminal protective order) pursuant to General Statutes § 54-63c (b).")
10/19/2009
Smith Bros. Woodland Management, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals SC18220 (Zoning appeal of cease and desist order concerning improper storage of logs and land clearing equipment; ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance with conditions precluded the plaintiff from engaging in other preexisting, nonconforming uses?’’) 10/13/2009Comprehensive Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Care, LLC v. Axtmayer - SC18304 ("The sole issue on appeal is whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority in declining to award attorney’s fees pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement. The plaintiffs, Comprehensive Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Care, LLC (Comprehensive), and certain physician members of Comprehensive, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate in part the arbitration award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4), because it concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by determining that Comprehensive did not 'prevail' on its underlying restrictive covenant claim. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by declining to award attorney’s fees because Comprehensive 'prevailed' under Connecticut law on its underlying claim, and, therefore, the arbitration agreement required the arbitrator to award attorney’s fees.")
Clinch v. Generali-U.S. Branch - SC18256 ("We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court correctly decide that the defendant insurer had no duty to defend any of the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence?'") 10/8/2009
Fanotto v. Inland Wetlands Commission - SC18221 (Zoning; "We granted the commission’s petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court limited to the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court improperly concluded that there was adequate support in the record for the denial of the application to conduct regulated activities on the subject property?'") 10/5/2009
Honulik v. Greenwich - SC18046 (Motion for reconsideration; "In his motion, the plaintiff claims that the judgment was rendered without subject matter jurisdiction because Justice Schaller, a member of the panel and the author of the majority opinion, reached the age of seventy, the constitutionally mandated age of retirement, prior to the release of the opinion, thereby rendering him ineligible to continue to deliberate or to otherwise participate in the disposition of the appeal. More specifically, the plaintiff argues that General Statutes § 51-198 (c),which authorizes Supreme Court justices who have reached the mandatory age of retirement to complete work on appeals they heard prior to retiring, is unconstitutional because it contravenes article fifth, § 6, of the constitution of Connecticut, as amended by article eight, § 2, of the amendments.")
Honulik v. Greenwich - SC18046 ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the collective bargaining agreement (agreement) between the named defendant, the town of Greenwich (town), and the Silver Shield Association, the union representing the town’s police officers (union), governs the promotion to the position of police captain, which is a position outside the bargaining unit, and requires that the candidate with the highest assessment score on a promotional examination be awarded the promotion.")
10/2/2009
AC28926 - Milford Paintball, LLC v. Wampus Milford Associates, LLC ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the lease agreement had never become effective and, as a result, improperly found in favor of the plaintiffs on their complaint and failed to find in favor of the defendant on its special defenses and counterclaim. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the lease agreement was ever effective.")
AC29269 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Litchfield Housing Authority ("The complainant claims that the court (1) improperly denied her right to intervene and, in the alternative, (2) abused its discretion in denying her permissive intervention. The defendants claim that (1) there is no final judgment for purposes of appeal because the complainant has no colorable claim for intervention as of right and (2) on the merits, the court properly denied her claim for intervention as of right and did not abuse its discretion in denying her permissive intervention. The commission claims that the complainant should be allowed permissive intervention.")
AC29177 - Milford v. Maykut ("The plaintiff claims that the court improperly awarded the defendants compensation for the diminution in value of a hypothetical lot of a subdivision when there was no evidence that a subdivision could be achieved within a reasonable time.")
AC29516 - D'Amato Investments, LLC v. Sutton ("This case involves the interpretation of a commercial lease and a personal guarantee of that lease. The plaintiff, D’Amato Investments, LLC, brought this action against the defendant, David Sutton, to recover the amount allegedly due under a commercial lease between the plaintiff and Chimaera, Inc. (Chimaera), pursuant to a guarantee signed by the defendant.")
AC30144 - McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC ("On appeal, McCook claims that the court improperly (1) declined to admit certain checks into evidence at the hearing on the motions to enforce the settlement agreement, (2) found the terms of the settlement agreement to be clear and unambiguous, (3) granted Lenihan relief beyond the scope of the settlement by awarding it attorney’s fees and interest, (4) refused to articulate its reasons for declining to admit the checks into evidence and (5) unconstitutionally denied him a fair trial by (a) refusing to allow him to finish testifying and (b) at the time the case was reported to be settled, failing to canvass the parties to determine whether they understood the terms of the settlement agreement.")
AC29785 - Rissolo v. Betts Island Oyster Farms, LLC ("This is an appeal from two matters, Rissolo v. Betts Island Oyster Farms, LLC, and Lovejoy v. Rissolo, formally consolidated by motion on the second day of trial on November 28, 2007. Both cases are essentially partition actions, with the Lovejoy case seeking additional relief in a count for damages for a breach of contract. The trial court ordered a partition by sale and awarded damages to Frederick A. Lovejoy, the substitute defendant in the first case and the plaintiff in the second case, from which he now appeals.")
AC29834 - Mansfield v. A & M Automotive ("The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant did not violate General Statutes § 14-145a, (2) failed to find that the defendant was liable for conversion and (3) failed to find that the defendant’s actions constituted a violation of General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA)...Red Brick and El Dorado shared use of a parking lot, and El Dorado had an arrangement with Red Brick such that Red Brick allowed El Dorado’s tenants to park in certain areas.")
AC29276 - Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly failed (1) to conclude that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in relation to the petitioner’s waiver of a jury trial, (2) to conclude that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allegedly taking away from the petitioner the right to decide whether to testify at trial, (3) to conclude that the trial court violated the petitioner’s sixth amendment right to counsel by failing to appoint an attorney to represent him during the criminal trial with respect to other charges in a separate proceeding and (4) to consider the testimony of the petitioner’s expert witness.")
AC28990 - Morant v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Stefon Morant, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner contends that the court improperly concluded that at his criminal trial (1) there was no violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and (2) he received effective assistance of counsel.")
AC29731 - Joseph v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Brenor Joseph, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That petition contained two counts alleging (1) that the petitioner was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial and (2) actual innocence. On appeal, he claims only that the court improperly determined that he received effective assistance of counsel.")
AC29690 - Williams v. Commissioner of Correction - ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly determined that he received effective assistance of counsel.") 10/1/2009
Below is a list of criminal law Appellate Court opinions issued in September 2009:
AC28785 - State v. Banks ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his sixth amendment right to confront witnesses by precluding him from admitting evidence showing motive, bias or interest of a state’s witness, (2) improperly dismissed a juror during trial and (3) improperly permitted a state’s witness to testify as both a fact witness and an expert witness.")
AC29684 - State v. Colon ("In this appeal, the defendant... claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a), threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 (a) (1) and breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (1).")
AC29139 - State v. Jordan ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a (a) and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the state’s improper comments during closing argument to the jury deprived him of a fair trial and (2) the trial court improperly precluded him from presenting evidence regarding the victim.") Concurrence
AC29096 - State v. Pettigrew ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence adduced at his probation violation hearing was insufficient to support the court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation and (2) the court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and sentenced him to four years of imprisonment.")
AC29287 - State v. Muhammad ("The defendant, Najee Muhammad, also known as Lester A. Edwards, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. The defendant claims that (1) the court based its revocation on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, (2) the court improperly failed to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law as to whether he had acted in self-defense during the incident underlying the violation of probation charge and (3) the court improperly failed to permit him to review and to present medical records supporting his claim of self-defense.")
AC28946 - State v. Makee R. ("On appeal, the defendant claims that he was denied a fair trial before a neutral judge in violation of the fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. Specifically, he argues that the court’s jury instructions improperly invaded the province of the fact finder, bolstered the credibility of the victim, diluted the state’s burden of proof and prejudiced his case.")
AC29833 - State v. Larsen ("The defendant... appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of two counts of criminal violation of a protective order under General Statutes § 53a-223 and one count of criminal violation of a restraining order under General Statutes § 53a 223b. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had the requisite intent to violate the orders.")
AC29505 - State v. Therrien ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of harassment in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-183 (a) (3) and threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 (a) (2). The defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978), (2) the court improperly admitted evidence from the sentencing proceedings of his codefendants and (3) the prosecutor committed improprieties that deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial.")
AC29763 - State v. Bereis ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a.1 On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence two police reports.")
AC29623 - State v. Hanson ("On appeal, the defendant claims that by denying his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas, the court abused its discretion because his pleas were made unknowingly and involuntarily. In support of that claim, the defendant argues that (1) the court’s plea canvass was defective because it did not substantially comply with Practice Book §§ 39-194 and 39-20,5 (2) his attorney rendered ineffective assistance at the hearing on his motion to withdraw the pleas by not allowing the defendant to testify and, subsequently, that the court should have conducted, sua sponte, an evidentiary inquiry at that hearing, and (3) the existence of several other pretrial constitutional violations rendered the pleas involuntary.") Concurrence
AC30509 - State v. Henry ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly failed to credit him for 411 days of presentence confinement that he was supposed to receive pursuant to a plea agreement he entered on June 15, 2005.")
AC29638 - State v. McElveen ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the state adduced insufficient evidence to support a finding that he was a persistent larceny offender, (2) the part B information charging him with being a persistent larceny offender was defective, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to due process under the state and federal constitutions, and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the basis of a defective information.")
AC26896 - State v. Winter ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied (1) his motion to dismiss the charge of criminal violation of a protective order and (2) his motion for a judgment of acquittal.")
Below are the family law Appellate Court opinions issued in September 2009:
-
AC30125 — Buehler v. Buehler (“In this dissolution of marriage action, the plaintiff. . . appeals from the orders of the trial court relating to alimony and custody and support of the parties’ three minor children. On appeal, the plaintiff makes numerous claims as to the propriety of the court’s orders that were issued on two different dates. The defendant...argues that the plaintiff’s appeal is untimely as to many of those claims. The anomalous circumstances of this case, with its motion laden file, compel us to first set out its facts and procedural history before discussing those claims in detail or determining the extent to which the plaintiff’s appeal is timely.”)
-
AC28172, AC30037 — Collins v. Collins [Dissolution of Marriage] (“These two appeals arise from the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. In AC 28172, the defendant...appeals from the trial court’s pendente lite order granting the plaintiff. . .exclusive possession of the marital home. In AC 30037, the defendant appeals from the final judgment of dissolution. We dismiss the appeal in AC 28172 and affirm the judgment of the trial court in AC 30037.”)
-
AC29257 — Hannon v. Redler [Dissolution of Marriage] (“The defendant. . .appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff. . . . On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) determined the value of his interest in his medical practice, (2) determined the net equity in his home, (3) determined his income and (4) ordered alimony and a distribution of assets to the plaintiff.”)
-
AC29259, AC29460, AC29865, AC30190 — LaBossiere v. Jones [Dissolution of Marriage] (“A decision to award counsel fees in a marital dissolution dispute ordinarily is based on an appraisal of the respective financial ability of each party to pay his or her own fees. See General Statutes § 46b-62; Koizim v. Koizim, 181 Conn. 492, 500–501, 435 A.2d 1030 (1980). Where, however, ‘a party has engaged in egregious litigation misconduct that has required the other party to expend significant amounts of money for attorney’s fees, and where the court determines, in its discretion, that the misconduct has not been addressed adequately by other orders of the court, the court has discretion to award attorney’s fees to compensate for the harm caused by that misconduct, irrespective of whether the other party has ample liquid assets and of whether the lack of such an award would undermine the court’s other financial orders.’ Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324, 357, 915 A.2d 790 (2007); see also General Statutes § 46b-87.”)
-
AC29590 — Taylor v. Taylor (“The defendant, Elinor J. Taylor, appeals from the postjudgment order of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff, Marvin J. Taylor, for modification of his alimony obligation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) interpreted the ‘second look’ aspect of the alimony provision in the separation agreement as a de novo postjudgment review and (2) reduced her alimony in contravention of the principles of trust law and considered the trust’s income or appreciation in deciding the plaintiff’s motion for modification.”)
Below is the employment law Appellate Court opinion issued in September 2009:
-
AC29702 - State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001 (“The plaintiff...appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application to vacate an arbitration award. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). We conclude that the court improperly failed to vacate the award with respect to the arbitrator’s finding in part two of the award that the demotion of the employee at issue cannot be extended in perpetuity and with respect to part three of the award.”)
-
AC29834 — Mansfield v. A & M Automotive (“The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant did not violate General Statutes § 14-145a, (2) failed to find that the defendant was liable for conversion and (3) failed to find that the defendant’s actions constituted a violation of General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).”)
-
AC30457 — Jarvis v. Lieder (“A constructive trust arises ‘when the legal title to property is obtained by a person in violation, express or implied, of some duty owed to the one who is equitably entitled, and when the property thus obtained is held in hostility to his beneficial rights of ownership. . . . The specific instances in which equity impresses a constructive trust are numberless,—as numberless as the modes by which property may be obtained through bad faith and unconscientious acts.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Millard v. Green, 94 Conn. 597, 601–602, 110 A. 177 (1920). This appeal calls on us to determine whether the trial court properly classified the defendants’ actions as among those numberless instances of bad faith or unconscientious acts that warrant the imposition of a constructive trust.”) 9/29/2009
A new web page, located in the Connecticut Cases section of our website, lists the NewsLog categories for advance release Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Court opinions.
9/28/2009Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. v. Computer Sciences — SC18223 ("This is the second of two appeals brought by the plaintiff, Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. (Coldwell Banker), in connection with a real estate transaction involving Coldwell Banker, the defendant, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), and Cushman and Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc. (Cushman). In the present appeal, Coldwell Banker claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the decision of the Greater Hartford Association of Realtors, Inc. (association), to dismiss as untimely Coldwell Banker’s request for arbitration of its claims against CSC constituted an arbitration award for purposes of General Statutes § 52-417,3 and, as a result, the court improperly confirmed the alleged award. Coldwell Banker further contends that the trial court improperly (1) granted CSC’s motion to stay pending arbitration, thus compelling Coldwell Banker to arbitrate with a third party who was not a signatory to any contract or a member of any association to which Coldwell Banker also belonged that required arbitration, (2) determined that a contract existed between Coldwell Banker and the association when there was no admission by the parties that there was such a contract and no evidence presented to support that fact, and (3) determined that CSC was entitled to enforce the arbitration provisions of the association’s bylaws and code of ethics as a third party beneficiary. CSC responds that the trial court properly determined that the association’s dismissal of the arbitration request as untimely constituted an award subject to confirmation by the trial court and, therefore, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Coldwell Banker’s claims against CSC. CSC also argues that the trial court properly stayed Coldwell Banker’s claims pending arbitration because (1) Coldwell Banker’s agreement to arbitrate contractual disputes with its clients pursuant to the association’s bylaws and code of ethics is enforceable, (2) CSC was an intended third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement, and (3) an intended third party beneficiary of an arbitration agreement may enforce a promise to arbitrate.")
Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. v. Cushman & Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc. — SC18222 ("This is one of two separate appeals arising out of a real estate transaction involving the plaintiff, Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. (Coldwell Banker), the named defendant, Cushman and Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc. (Cushman), and Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). In the present appeal, Coldwell Banker claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the decision of the Greater Hartford Association of Realtors, Inc. (association), to dismiss as untimely Coldwell Banker’s request for arbitration of claims against Cushman constituted an arbitration award for purposes of General Statutes § 52- 4174 and, therefore, that the court’s confirmation of the alleged award and its subsequent dismissal of Coldwell Banker’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction also were improper. Coldwell Banker further contends that the trial court improperly concluded that its request for arbitration (1) was unrestricted, (2) applied to the two individual defendants, namely, Joel M. Grieco and Robert E. Kelly, who served as Cushman’s agents during the real estate transaction, and (3) encompassed several claims that, according to Coldwell Banker, were not contained in its request. Cushman responds that the trial court properly determined that the association’s dismissal of the arbitration request as untimely constituted an arbitration award subject to confirmation by the trial court and, therefore, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Coldwell Banker’s claims. It also contends that Coldwell Banker’s arbitration request was unrestricted and, consequently, applied to Grieco and Kelly, and to both the contract and noncontract claims. Cushman finally contends that the trial court’s judgment may be affirmed on the alternate ground that, even if this court concludes that the award applies only to the contract claims against Cushman, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the noncontract claims and the claims against Grieco and Kelly because those claims are exclusively arbitrable and there has been no arbitration.")
9/25/2009
Paradigm Contract Management Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. — SC18301 ("This case presents the narrow issue of whether any claim that may be asserted against a labor and material payment bond required by General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 49-411 must be asserted within the time limit provided in General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 49-42 (b). The plaintiff. . .brought this action against the defendant. . .seeking to enforce, pursuant to § 49-41, a labor and material payment bond that the defendant had executed in connection with a municipal construction project. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in § 49-42 (b). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court, claiming that § 49-42 (b) does not apply to this action because the plaintiff had not brought the action pursuant to § 49-42 but, rather, had brought a common-law action on the bond, and the parties had entered into a tolling agreement whereby they had agreed to extend the statute of limitations.") 9/24/2009
In re Jorden R. SC18169 (Termination of parental rights; certification from Appellate Court; "The petitioner, the commissioner of children and families (commissioner), appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court’s judgment terminating the respondent mother’s parental rights with respect to her infant son, Jorden R. In re Jorden R., 107 Conn. App. 12, 36, 944 A.2d 402 (2008). The commissioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly: (1) interpreted § 17a-112 (j) (1) to require the department of children and families (department) to prove that it made reasonable efforts to reunify a family before a court can find that a parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services; (2) substituted its judgment for the trial court’s in overruling the trial court’s finding that the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services; and (3) concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding from evidence a psychological evaluation of the respondent.") 9/14/2009
State of Connecticut v. Rupar SC18269 (Writ of error challenging a decision of the review division; Sexual assault; risk of injury; "...[W]hether convicted persons have a liberty interest under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution in receiving prison sentences that are proportional to the prison sentences of similarly situated offenders.") 9/10/2009
Saunders v. Firtel - SC18309 (Employment; recovering unpaid wages and double damages pursuant to statute (§§ 31-71c and § 31-72); definition of employee; breach of contract; dissolution of limited liability company; “On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) invoked § 31-72 in awarding wages to the plaintiff because the plaintiff was not an ‘employee’ of Adco within the meaning of § 31-72, (2) calculated the amount of wages awarded to the plaintiff for 2004 by failing to prorate the plaintiff’s salary on the basis of the number of months that he had worked in that year, (3) awarded double damages to the plaintiff pursuant to § 31-72, and (4) ordered the dissolution of Barbur.”)
9/8/2009
State v. Hampton - SC17715 (Attempt to commit murder in violation of §§ 53a-49(a), 53a-8 and 53a-54a; conspiracy to commit murder in violation of §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-54a; kidnapping first degree in violation of §§ 53a-8 and 53a-92 (a) (2) (A); conspiracy to commit kidnapping first degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 and 53a-92 (a) (2) (A); assault first degree in violation of §§ 53a-8 and 53a-59 (a) (5); conspiracy to commit assault first degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-59 (a) (5); sexual assault first degree in violation of §§ 53a-8 and 53a-70 (a) (1); conspiracy to commit sexual assault first degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-70 (a) (1); criminal possession of firearm in violation of § 53a-217(a) (1); motion to suppress; Miranda rights; claim that jury was not properly instructed.) 9/3/2009
AC29642 - Byars v. Berg ("The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that his claims are precluded under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.")
AC29835- Tsionis v. Martens ("On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the court improperly determined that a contract existed between the parties and (2) in the alternative, if a contract did exist, then the court improperly determined that the contract was not terminated under the mortgage contingency clause.")
AC30199 - Tuccio Custom Homes, LLC v. Lamonica (“The plaintiff contends that the court improperly concluded that the action was barred by res judicata.”)
State v. Flanagan - SC17990 ("On appeal, the defendant claims: (1) that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that he had not clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to self-representation under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution; and (2) in response to an alternate ground for affirmance proffered by the state, that the trial court improperly applied an ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ test in ruling on the timeliness of his request to represent himself.") 9/2/2009
Below are the family law Appellate Court opinions issued in August 2009:
-
AC29538 — Rozsa v. Rozsa [Dissolution of Marriage] (“The plaintiff… appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the defendant…. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in fashioning its financial orders, the court improperly determined his net income and abused its discretion by (1) ordering him to pay alimony and support that exceeded his income, (2) assigning the defendant a majority of the marital assets while assigning him a majority of the marital debt and liabilities, (3) awarding the defendant alimony and (4) awarding the defendant attorney’s fees and expert witness fees.”)
-
AC29223 — Spilke v. Spilke [Dissolution of Marriage] (“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion for contempt and to open and to vacate the judgment dissolving her marriage to the defendant…. In her postjudgment motion, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented certain information on the financial affidavits that he submitted prior to and at the time of the dissolution. On appeal, she claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion because she presented evidence of fraud sufficient to open the judgment.”)
-
AC30459 — Jayne S. v. Kyle S. (“The defendant, Kyle S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for a restraining order filed by the pro se plaintiff, Jayne S., pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-15. He claims that the court abused its discretion in so doing because no factual basis existed to support the requisite finding that he presented a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury to the plaintiff and her boyfriend, Joseph K.”)
-
AC29593 — McMellon v. McMellon [Dissolution of Marriage] (“In this marital dissolution action, the defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court with respect to the court’s financial orders. The defendant claims that the court improperly awarded (1) lifetime alimony to the plaintiff and (2) $15,000 in attorney’s fees.”)
-
AC29919 — Fitzsimons v. Fitzsimons [Dissolution of Marriage] (“In this marital dissolution action, the defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court with respect to the court’s financial orders. Specifically, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) modifying the marital property division postjudgment and (2) awarding the plaintiff…relief not claimed by her at trial.”)
Below are the employment law Appellate Court opinions issued in August 2009:
-
AC29994 — Duart v. Department of Correction (“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it denied her motion for a new trial, in which she alleged that the defendant, the department of correction, engaged in discovery misconduct. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court, in denying the motion, relied on an improper standard when it concluded that she was required to show that the outcome of the trial would have been different without the defendant’s alleged discovery misconduct.”)
-
AC30183 — Prioleau v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (“The plaintiff… appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from a decision of the defendant commission on human rights and opportunities (commission). The commission determined that there was no reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory or retaliatory practices had been committed and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without a hearing. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the commission applied the proper legal standard to his claims and (2) the commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.”)
-
AC29034 — Ayantola v. Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges (“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the Board of Trustees of Technical Colleges, in this action to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of General Statutes § 46a-60. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims, (2) improperly concluded that he did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation and (3) improperly concluded that the defendant did not retaliate against the him in violation of § 46a-60 (a) (4).”)
-
AC29907 — In re Zion R. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Zion. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that she had failed to achieve such degree of rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, she could assume a responsible position in the child’s life and (2) considered the best interest of the child during the adjudication phase of the petition.”)
-
AC30089 — In re Nathan B. (“The respondent father appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner mother, terminating the respondent’s parental rights with respect to his minor child, Nathan B. The sole issue on appeal is whether, under the circumstances of this case, the trial judge’s continuing to preside at the trial created an appearance of impropriety, requiring his recusal.”)
-
AC28286 - Sovereign Bank v. Licata (Foreclosure; “The substitute plaintiff, Seven Oaks Partners, LP (Seven Oaks), appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury verdict, in favor of the defendant…on her counterclaim alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and negligent misrepresentation. Seven Oaks claims that the court improperly failed to grant its motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to the counts of the defendant’s counterclaim alleging a violation of CUTPA and negligent misrepresentation.”)
-
AC29642 - Byars v. Berg (Collateral Estoppel; “…[T]he plaintiff filed a revised complaint in the present action, alleging, inter alia, fraudulent misrepresentation. Essentially, the plaintiff alleged that because it was not legally constituted, the association and its various agents, including the defendants, lacked the authority either to enter into legally binding contracts or to take legal action on behalf of the association. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered harm from the actions of the defendants that resulted in the association successfully having foreclosed liens against his property.”)
- AC28286 — Sovereign Bank v. Licata (Foreclosure; “The substitute plaintiff, Seven Oaks Partners, LP (Seven Oaks), appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury verdict, in favor of the defendant…on her counterclaim alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and negligent misrepresentation. Seven Oaks claims that the court improperly failed to grant its motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to the counts of the defendant’s counterclaim alleging a violation of CUTPA and negligent misrepresentation.”)
-
AC29851 — Nicefaro v. New Haven (“The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff…in this trip and fall action. The defendant challenges as clearly erroneous the court’s findings that (1) the defendant had constructive notice of the defect at issue and (2) the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.”)
-
AC29822 — Sullivan v. Brown (“We may not overturn prior case law established by our Supreme Court, and we conclude, with respect to the defendants’ sole claim on appeal concerning costs and attorney’s fees under CUTPA, that the defendants have not appealed from a final judgment. In its memorandum of decision, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs and indicated that a hearing would be scheduled to determine the amount. ‘In Paranteau v. DeVita, [supra, 208 Conn. 524 n.11], our Supreme Court determined that “[a] supplemental postjudgment award of attorney’s fees becomes final and appealable…not when there is a finding of liability for such fees, but when the amount of fees are conclusively determined.” An award of attorney’s fees without a determination of the amount of the attorney’s fees is not an appealable final judgment…’”)
-
AC30049 — Socci v. Pasiak (“The plaintiff…appeals from the trial court’s denial of her application for a prejudgment attachment of certain property of the defendant…. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found that payment of any judgment rendered against the defendant was secured adequately by insurance.”)
-
AC29949 — Stein v. Tong (“The defendant…appeals following the denial of her motion to open or to set aside the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, …. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied her motion to open or to set aside the judgment, (2) modified the original judgment in lieu of granting the motion to open or to set aside the judgment, (3) relied on a legal theory that was not pleaded by the plaintiff, (4) found that she had possession and control of the defective sidewalk and stairway where the plaintiff tripped and fell, (5) concluded that there was no abuse of discretion when the court, Graham, J., denied her motion for a continuance and (6) relied on Hartford’s building code to find that a defect existed on the property at issue.”)
-
AC29331 — Swanson v. Groton (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly: (1) concluded that governmental immunity barred her negligence claims; (2) rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on her claim of failure to train and supervise; (3) rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on her claim of loss of parental consortium; and (4) denied her motion for articulation and reconsideration.”)
-
AC29642 - Byars v. Berg (“…[T]he plaintiff filed a revised complaint in the present action, alleging, inter alia, fraudulent misrepresentation. Essentially, the plaintiff alleged that because it was not legally constituted, the association and its various agents, including the defendants, lacked the authority either to enter into legally binding contracts or to take legal action on behalf of the association. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered harm from the actions of the defendants that resulted in the association successfully having foreclosed liens against his property.”)
AC29440 Campagnone v. Clark (Home improvement contract; CUTPA violation; defendant was not registered as a home improvement contractor while engaging in construction work with the plaintiffs; "The plaintiffs first claim that the court improperly (1) found Newton’s remediation proposal for exterior work to be unnecessarily costly and (2) declined to award them $750 in damages for the defendant’s failure to construct the bifold doors. ...Last, the plaintiffs claim that the act; General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; and specifically General Statutes § 20-429 (a), prohibited the court from offsetting the plaintiffs’ damages award by an amount equal to the unpaid balance remaining on the contract as a matter of law.")
AC29822 Sullivan v. Brown (Breach of contract; CUPTA violation; jurisdiction; "...[W]hether the court’s March 31, 2008 decision that the plaintiff was entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees was an appealable final judgment in light of the fact that the court indicated that the plaintiff may move for a hearing on costs and attorney’s fees but the hearing had not been held and the amount of attorney’s fees, if any, had not yet been decided.")
AC30199 Tuccio Custom Homes, LLC v. Lamonica (Breach of contract; summary judgment; whether court improperly concluded that action was barred by res judicata)
AC29835 Tsionis v. Martens ("On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the court improperly determined that a contract existed between the parties and (2) in the alternative, if a contract did exist, then the court improperly determined that the contract was not terminated under the mortgage contingency clause.")
AC29998 Double G.G. Leasing, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Insurance contract; summary judgment; alleged breach of cooperation clause in liability insurance policy; "The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) Glatzel had filed federal and state income tax returns for the years 2001 through 2006 and (2) he failed to provide these returns to the defendant. ... Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the court demanded ‘‘absolute perfection, not substantial compliance,’’ in determining that the plaintiff had failed to cooperate with the investigation as required by the terms of the insurance contract.")
AC30206 Gianetti v. Health Net of Connecticut, Inc.("...[T]he plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant because a genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to the authenticity of the health care policy submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment.")
AC29724 LeBlanc v. New England Raceway, LLC (Attempt to convert dog racing track into NASCAR racetrack; "...[P]laintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) shifted the burden to them to prove that the defendants approved the changes made to the contract, (2) found that by signing a dual agency agreement the parties revoked the authority of the real estate agent to bind the defendants, (3) made or failed to make various findings of fact and (4) allowed the defendants to amend their answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint."
AC30105 Cassidy v. Zoning Commission (Application for special permit; whether the public notice published by the commission satisfied the requirements of C.G.S. §8-7d; whether shortcomings in the text of the published notice were cured by the commission's inclusion of a statement that the application was on file in the town planning office) 9/1/2009
Below is the search and seizure Appellate Court opinion issued in August 2009:
AC29138 - State v. Madison ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress 'rocks' of crack cocaine found by a police officer in the vehicle the defendant was driving.")
AC29760 - Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) he failed to prove that the state suppressed evidence of an agreement with a witness, (2) his claim that his conviction was the product of perjured testimony was not an independent or freestanding claim on which relief could be granted in a habeas proceeding and (3) newly discovered evidence did not establish his actual innocence of the crimes of which he was convicted.")
AC29562 - Miller v. Commissioner of Correction ("He contends that the court improperly concluded that he failed to prove his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner further alleges a due process violation.")
AC29387 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal and that it improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance.")
AC29284 - Townsend v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, he claims that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for not advising him of his appellate rights in connection with the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in his preparation for trial and (3) it was improper for the court to grant the motion filed by the respondent, the commissioner of correction, to quash the petitioner’s subpoena duces tecum for the disciplinary records of police officers involved in the investigation of the underlying crime.")
AC29377 - Shelton v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion when it denied his petition for certification to appeal and improperly rejected his claim that his pleas of nolo contendere were not knowing, intelligent and voluntary due to (1) ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) the trial court’s having impermissibly participated in plea negotiations during the plea canvass.")
8/31/2009
Below is a list of criminal law Appellate Court opinions issued in August 2009:
AC29138 - State v. Madison ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress ‘‘rocks’’ of crack cocaine found by a police officer in the vehicle the defendant was driving.")
AC28679 - State v. Joseph ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of unlawful restraint in the first degree; (2) the court improperly failed to instruct the jury on reckless endangerment in the second degree, which he claims is a lesser offense included within unlawful restraint in the first degree; (3) the court improperly instructed the jury on the statutory definition of intent; and (4) the court improperly joined in one trial the charges against him, which arose from two unrelated incidents.")
AC30419 - State v. King ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his conviction of conspiracy to commit murder and (2) the court improperly instructed the jury on issues of credibility.")
AC29540 - State v. Delgado ("The defendant... appearing pro se, appeals following the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) found that his sentence for possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 29- 38 was legal with regard to the manner in which the weapon was used and (2) found that his sentence was within the parameters of § 29-38 with regard to the size of the weapon used.")
AC29794 - State v. Campbell ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly rejecting his request to instruct the jury that it might find that his college dormitory was his residence or place of abode. The defendant also claims that the court wrongfully usurped the jury’s fact-finding function by deciding that the common hallway in the college dormitory was not part of the defendant’s residence or place of abode")
AC29858 - State v. Flemming ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) determined that he had effectively waived his right to the assistance of counsel for the purposes of the violation of probation hearing and (2) failed to make an adequate investigation into whether he was indigent and therefore qualified for representation by the public defender’s office.")
AC29709 - State v. Hayward ("On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and (2) the prosecutor engaged in impropriety during closing argument.")
AC29860 - State v. Bivrell ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction on either of the charges, (2) the court improperly diluted the state’s burden of proof by repeatedly telling the jury not to be swayed by sympathy and (3) the court improperly denied the state’s request to charge on the lesser included offense of assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61.")
AC29839 - State v. Marsala ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree because the state failed to meet its burden of proof in regard to an element of the crime charged and (2) the court improperly instructed the jury on the definition of owner and authorized person under § 53a-107 (a) (1).")
AC30420 - State v. Eason ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a- 54a. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) assumed the role of advocate on behalf of the state and (2) failed to consider, sua sponte, whether certain photographs admitted into evidence should have been cropped to excise allegedly prejudicial images contained therein, as a matter of due process.")
AC28795 - State v. Heriberto M. ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) admitted the testimony of a clinical social worker containing hearsay statements under the medical treatment exception, (2) admitted constancy of accusation testimony and (3) provided an expert testimony charge in its instructions to the jury.")
AC29360 - State v. James N. ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court failed to grant sufficient relief after determining that jury misconduct had occurred.")
AC29673 - State v. Koslik ("The defendant... appeals from the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, he claims that his sentence is illegal because the term of probation exceeds the permissible statutory maximum for violations of General Statutes § 20-427 (b) (3) and (5).") Concurrence
AC29143 - State v. Gainey ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly responded to a jury question regarding nonexclusive possession and (2) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove that he constructively possessed the heroin found hidden in a car")
AC29422 - State v. Gaskin ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) limited his cross examination of the victim, (2) failed to disclose all relevant material following an in camera review, (3) admitted the victim’s statement into evidence in violation of the Whelan2 rule and (4) granted the state’s motion to limit the defendant’s closing argument.")
AC29043 - State v. Palkimas ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept his plea of nolo contendere because, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-38c (g), the charge of criminal violation of a protective order was dismissed once he successfully completed the classroom component of the family violence education program (program).")
AC29480 - State v. Carbone ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly allowed the state to amend the information at the close of the state’s evidence and (2) he was denied his due process right to a fair trial due to prosecutorial impropriety.")
AC29075 - State v. Holloway ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly denied his Batson challenge, (2) the court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial, which was based on his claim of judicial bias and (3) he was deprived of his right to due process as a result of prosecutorial impropriety.") Envirotest Systems Corp. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles - SC18156 ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 14-164c (e), by force of necessary implication, waives the state’s sovereign immunity from suit. The defendant, the commissioner of motor vehicles (commissioner), appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the action of the plaintiff, Envirotest Systems Corporation, claiming that the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.")
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue Services - SC18153 ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a retailer can be both a ‘‘nonresident contractor,’’ pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 12-430 (7), and a ‘‘retailer engaged in business in this state,’’ pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 12- 411 (3), under the Sales and Use Tax Act, General Statutes § 12-406 et seq. (act). The plaintiff, Rainforest Cafe, Inc., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the department of revenue services, in the plaintiff’s tax appeal brought pursuant to General Statutes § 12-422.2 The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly determined that a nonresident contractor could not also be a retailer engaged in business in this state, and that the plaintiff therefore was not relieved of its tax liability under § 12- 430 (7) even though it had paid taxes pursuant to § 12- 411 (3).")
Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation - SC18142 ("This appeal arises from an action brought by the plaintiff, Columbia Air Services, Inc., against the defendants, the department of transportation (department) and its commissioner, Stephen E. Korta II (commissioner), in connection with the proposed development of certain land located at the Groton- New London Airport (airport). The plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendants after the trial court had granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the trial court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to three of the counts.") 8/24/2009
State v. Foster — SC17780 (Murder; Kidnapping; "On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly allowed the state to introduce hearsay evidence in violation of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and his right to confrontation under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, (2) inadequately addressed an instance of juror misconduct in violation of his right to a trial by an impartial jury under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, and article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut, and (3) diluted the state’s burden of proof by improperly instructing the jury on his alibi defense.")
State v. Cutler — SC18060 ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95. The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court improperly: (1) admitted certain prior misconduct evidence after concluding that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect; (2) declined to instruct the jury to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine whether the prior misconduct occurred; and (3) marshaled the evidence in its jury instruction by referencing only the state’s prior misconduct evidence and not the defendant’s countervailing evidence.") 8/20/2009
SS-II, LLC v. Bridge Street Associates SC18271 (Contract; specific performance; statute of frauds; equitable estoppel; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff...is entitled to specific performance of an option to purchase property owned by the defendant... under the terms of a commercial lease agreement between the parties." 8/19/2009
State v. Willie Cox SC18211 (Attempt to commit assault of peace officer - attendant, substantial step;...[D]efendant contends that, because the trial court instructed the jury only on the attendant circumstances section of the criminal attempt statute, § 53a-49 (a) (1), and not on the substantial step section, § 53a-49 (a) (2), and because of the state’s conduct throughout trial, culminating with its failure to take exception to the trial court’s jury instruction, the state implicitly waived any right to a charge under the substantial step section. In addition, the defendant contends that the evidence offered by the state was insufficient to satisfy the attendant circumstances section of the attempt statute, the only section on which the trial court instructed the jury, and his conviction therefore should be reversed.") 8/18/2009
In re Judicial Inquiry No. 2005-02 SC18069 (Grand jury; subject matter jurisdiction; [W]hether the Appellate Court correctly construed General Statutes §§ 54-47b through 54-47g (grand jury statutes).") 8/17/2009
Auto Glass Express, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co. SC18118 (Breach of contract; implied contract; whether plaintiffs' performance of glass repairs constituted acceptance of terms of pricing letters; "...[W]hether the plaintiffs have sustained their burden of proving that the defendant had breached the terms of the insurance policies assigned to the plaintiffs by refusing to pay the amounts stated in the plaintiffs’ invoices.") 8/14/2009
Newman v. Planning & Zoning Commission - SC18106, SC18107 (Zoning; "whether the trial court properly concluded that the named defendant, the planning and zoning commission of the town of Avon (commission), improperly had interpreted and applied a density provision of Avon’s zoning regulations applicable to residential lots when it granted the subdivision application of the defendants Mary Markow and Eric R. Secor, Jr. (applicants).") 8/13/2009
Earlington v. Anastasi - SC18042, SC18044 (Medical Malpractice; "On appeal,the defendants claim that the trial court improperly: (1) included specifications of negligence in the jury interrogatories that the court previously had ruled were not supported by the evidence; (2) permitted the jury to consider specifications of negligence in the jury interrogatories that were not supported by the evidence; (3) failed to order a new trial on the ground that the jury’s responses to the interrogatories were internally inconsistent; and (4) failed to order a remittitur of the economic damages awarded to Omar.") Director of Health Affairs Policy Planning v. Freedom of Information Commission - SC18286 (Administrative appeal; "The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether certain records held by the plaintiff, the director of health affairs policy planning for the University of Connecticut Health Center, are exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act (act), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq., pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-17b (d), which protects peer review proceedings from discovery and introduction into evidence in a civil action".)
8/12/2009
State v. Morelli - SC18047 (Operating motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of § 14-227a; certified appeal; proof beyond reasonable doubt; claim of insufficient evidence; "whether the trial court properly rejected the defendant’s claim that a concussion reasonably had led to his failure of the field sobriety tests.")
8/7/2009
AC29304 - Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission ("On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the commission does not have discretion to deny an application for a special permit when, as in this case, the applicant has complied with all applicable zoning regulations. The plaintiffs further contend that the court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the commission’s reasons for the denial of their application for a special permit.")
AC29442 - Chappell v. Pfizer, Inc., Et Al. (The sole issue on appeal is whether the workers’ compensation review board...properly affirmed the determination of the workers’ compensation commissioner for the second district ... that asthma is an occupational disease for the plaintiff....")
State v. Bruno - SC18251, 18252 ("The defendant... was convicted, after a jury trial, of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell by a person who is not drug dependent, in violation of General Statutes § 21a- 278 (b), sale of a narcotic substance by a person who is not drug dependent, in violation of § 21a-278 (b), possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b), and conspiracy to sell a narcotic substance by a person who is not drug-dependent, in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 (b) and 53a-48. Thereafter, following a trial to the court on part B of the two part information, in which the state charged the defendant with being a ‘‘[p]ersistent [d]rug [o]ffender’’ in violation of § 21a-278, the court found that the state had failed to meet its burden of proving that the defendant was guilty of that charge. Specifically, the court found, sua sponte, that the state improperly had charged the defendant with being a persistent felony offender under General Statutes § 53a-40 rather than charging him with being a subsequent drug offender under § 21a-278 (b), and that § 53a-40 does not apply to drug offenses. After the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict on the first part of the information, the defendant appealed on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The state appealed from that part of the judgment dismissing part B of the information, claiming that the trial court improperly had concluded that the state had charged the defendant under § 53a-40 and not under § 21a 278 (b).") 8/6/2009
Brennan v. Brennan Associates - SC17812, SC17813 ("As aptly described by the trial court, ‘‘[t]his particular case is the unhappy story of a financially successful [partnership] that became an environment of distrust, rancor and paralysis after the untimely death of [one of the four partners].’’ On one side is the plaintiff, Thomas Brennan, one of the partnership’s founding members. On the other side are the defendants: the named defendant, the partnership of Brennan Associates (partnership); the two other surviving partners; and the four coadministrators (administrators) of the estate of the deceased partner, Richard Aiello (decedent). The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the counterclaim filed by the defendant partners, Alexander Aiello and Serge Mihaly, seeking the plaintiff’s expulsion from the partnership, pursuant to General Statutes § 34-355 (5) (C), and denying the plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction barring the defendants from blocking his full access to the partnership records. All of the defendants except the partnership cross appeal from, inter alia, the trial court’s judgment denying their request for that court to conduct a proceeding for the valuation of the plaintiff’s partnership interest while the plaintiff’s appeal was pending")
Unistar Properties, LLC v. Conservation & Inland Wetlands Commission - SC18321 ("The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether the commission properly denied the plaintiff’s application for a wetlands permit as incomplete because it was missing certain information, including a sufficiently detailed wildlife inventory and an analysis of alternatives to the proposed activity. The plaintiff claims, inter alia, that, because it had established that its proposal would not result in a change to the physical characteristics of the wetlands and there was no evidence that an impact on animal species in turn could effect such a change, the commission has no authority under the governing statutes to demand such information. To the extent that the commission was entitled to such information, the plaintiff also claims that the trial court should have remanded the case to the commission so that the plaintiff could provide the necessary information.") 8/5/2009State v. Long - SC18245 ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the remarks of the assistant state’s attorney (prosecutor) to the jury in his closing and rebuttal arguments were improper and deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial.") 8/3/2009
Sokaitis v. Bakaysa - SC18130 ("The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 52-5532 applies to, and makes void, a contract entered into by the plaintiff, Theresa Sokaitis, and the defendant, Rose Bakaysa, to share equally the proceeds of their legal gambling activities. On appeal, the defendant challenges the Appellate Court’s determination that the contract between the parties was not covered by § 52-553.") 7/31/2009
Below is a list of criminal law Appellate Court opinions issued in July 2009:
AC28642 - State v. Jones ("He claims that (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained by a search warrant because the warrant was based solely on suspicion and conjecture rather than probable cause, (2) the prosecutor committed impropriety during closing arguments to the jury and (3) the defendant was denied his right under the confrontation clause of the federal and state constitutions to cross-examine the victim effectively.")
AC28735 - State v. Licari ("The defendant claims: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of uncharged misconduct for the purpose of establishing a common scheme, intent and absence of accident or to corroborate other evidence; (2) the court abused its discretion in admitting the written statement of the defendant’s former wife as substantive evidence under the rule of State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743, 753, 513 A.2d 86, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S. Ct. 597, 93 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986), where the purported written statement was not sufficiently reliable for admission under the rule; (3) the defendant’s conviction of both larceny and insurance fraud violated the double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution; and (4) the defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s pretrial conduct.")
AC27986 - State v. Paige ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on ‘‘many of the charges’’ against her and (2) the trial court improperly directed the jury to find that the state had proven an element of the crime of perjury, as charged in count two. After a thorough review of the record...")
AC28878 - State v. Collazo ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to order an evaluation of his competency to stand trial and to conduct an independent inquiry as to the need for such evaluation, (2) instructed the jury that it could find him guilty as either a principal or an accessory and (3) denied his Batson challenge.")
AC29501 - State v. Garcia ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) allowed Michael Walker, an orthopedic surgeon, to testify as to an assault victim’s statement regarding the cause of his injury, which was testimonial in nature, and violated the defendant’s right to confront the victim and (2) denied a Batson challenge.")
AC28877 - State v. Virgo ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (1) and 53a- 48, and assault in the first degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (1) and 53a- 8.1 The defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly joined two cases for trial and (2) the evidence does not support a finding of guilt as to either crime of which he stands convicted.")
AC29581 - State v. Olson ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that his sentence had not been imposed in an illegal manner because the court did not order that a presentence investigation report (report) be prepared prior to sentencing.")
AC29957 - State v. Maurice M. ("On appeal, the defendant claims that § 53-21 (a) (1) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct and that the court (1) applied the incorrect standard for his alleged violation of § 53-21 (a), (2) based its finding that he violated his probation on insufficient evidence and (3) abused its discretion by revoking his probation.") Dissent
AC29244 - State v. Barnes ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding him in violation of probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court violated his constitutional right to due process by failing to state specifically the basis of its conclusion that his probationary status should be revoked.")
AC27916 - State v. Calabrese ("This case arises from an altercation between the defendant, Edan F. Calabrese, and his mother, Maureen Calabrese. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury found him guilty of assault of an elderly person in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61a (a) (1), burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-102 (a) (1) and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction on any of the counts charged, (2) the court improperly excluded from evidence messages left on his answering machine by the victim and (3) the state engaged in prosecutorial impropriety.") Concurrence and Dissent
AC28007 - State v. Elson ("The defendant claims that (1) with regard to his assault conviction, the court improperly permitted the jury to find that his hands were dangerous instruments, (2) the court improperly admitted certain evidence, (3) the court, in its jury charge, improperly commented on his interest in the outcome of the case, improperly commented on the state’s interest in protecting innocent persons from being convicted of crimes and delivered an instruction on reasonable doubt that diluted the state’s burden of proof, (4) the evidence did not support the jury’s verdict with regard to the assault charge and (5) the court considered improper factors at the time of sentencing.") Concurrence, and Concurrence and Dissent
Below is a list of administrative appeal Appellate Court opinions issued in July 2009:
AC29703 - Townsend v. Hogan ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a disciplinary hearing decision of the department of correction (department).")
AC30137 - Lash v. Freedom of Information Commission ("The plaintiffs James A. Lash, first selectman of the town of Greenwich, and the Greenwich board of selectment appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant freedom of information commission (commission) in favor of the defendant Stephen Whitaker. On appeal before this court, the plaintiffs claim that the Superior Court improperly dismissed the appeal because the commission erroneously (1) found that they violated General Statutes § 1-210 (a) by failing to provide prompt access to certain public records, (2) found that they failed to establish that two specific documents were exempt from disclosure under § 1-210 (b) (10) and (3) imposed a civil penalty of $100 against Lash pursuant to General Statutes § 1-206 (b) (2).")
Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Amaro - SC18305 (“In this appeal, we consider whether a municipal tax lien on a mobile home was extinguished when that mobile home was determined to have been abandoned and then sold at a public auction pursuant to General Statutes § 21-80 (e). The plaintiff…appeals from the judgments of the trial court denying its motion for an order conveying good title to, and a release of all liens upon, two abandoned mobile homes in the plaintiff’s mobile manufactured home park. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the judgments of the trial court were improper because the language of § 21-80 (e) (4) clearly and unambiguously provides that all existing liens on the mobile homes, including the municipal tax liens held by the city of Shelton (city), were extinguished upon the court ordered sale of the mobile homes.”)
AC29546 - Davila v. Commission of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he was not denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel when his attorneys failed to move to have the charges in the petitioner’s second criminal trial dismissed on double jeopardy grounds and failed to present this claim in his direct appeal, respectively.")
-
AC28151 - Morgan v. Bubar (“Here, the questions presented are whether a right to pursue a defamation action is subordinate to the right to complain through appropriate administrative channels and whether state employees may be sued for damages for failing to investigate such complaints. The defendants…appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment. The defendants claim that the court improperly denied their motion for summary judgment, which claimed (1) that Bubar was entitled to absolute immunity and (2) that Carini and Castronova were entitled to qualified immunity.”)
-
AC29740 - Sophia v. Danbury (“In this action claiming retaliation by her employer, the plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it denied her motion in arrest of judgment or to set aside the verdict in favor of the defendant city of Danbury. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly instructed the jury by including elements of constructive discharge within the retaliation claim.”)
-
AC30202 - Brown v. Gibson & Behman, P.C. [Motion to vacate arbitration award] ("The plaintiff, an attorney, was hired by the defendant, a law firm, pursuant to a written employment contract. Subsequently, the written employment contract was modified orally to provide that additional compensation would be paid to the plaintiff as fees were generated on the matters that he referred to the defendant. While employed by the defendant, the plaintiff referred the Wolcott matter, which is presently at issue, to the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently left the employ of the defendant and returned to his former law firm…
"The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant pursuant to the oral agreement for the moneys he was owed for the referral of the Wolcott matter.")
-
AC30611 - In re Justin F. ([N]eglect judgments, orders modifying, suspending visitation; order permitting withdrawal of motion to suspend visitation; denial of motion to revoke commitment; orders re: children’s care; motion to dismiss the proceedings; order modifying visitation; denial of motion for contempt; orders re: children’s care)
-
AC29555 - In re Elysa D. (“The respondent father…appeals from the judgment of the trial court transferring guardianship of his three minor children to their maternal grandmother, claiming that the trial court…(1) violated his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel in a proceeding affecting his parental rights and (2) improperly transferred custody of the children from the respondent mother…to their maternal grandmother.”)
-
AC29706 - Ma'Ayergi & Associates, LLC v. Pro Search, Inc. (“The plaintiff argues that he properly pleaded a claim of defamation on behalf of himself because, although he alleged injury to his law firm and to his company, he also alleged that the defendants had told prospective clients that he was incompetent and that he could not properly perform abstract of title work. He further argues that the fact that he is the sole member of a limited liability company should not interfere with his right to bring a defamation claim against people or entities who specifically slandered him and ruined his individual professional reputation.”)
-
AC28680 - Beckenstein Enterprises-Prestige Park, LLC v. Keller (“[T]he plaintiffs asserted four counts, sounding in tortious interference with a contract, civil conspiracy, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., respectively. . .
"On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) charged the jury that the statute of limitations served to narrow the actionable claims to only those that arose from wrongful conduct occurring after October 4, 2000, (2) refused to allow the plaintiffs to assert and to prove that an earlier action tolled the statute of limitations, (3) denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their reply and (4) directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”)
-
AC29552 - Pike v. Bugbee (“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants…following the granting of their motion to strike the thirteenth count of the complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the count was legally sufficient because (1) the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to protect social invitees on their premises from foreseeable harm, (2) the allegations provided a basis for a claim for parental liability pursuant to General Statutes § 52-572, (3) the allegations of scienter precluded the granting of the motion to strike and (4) the court concluded improperly that liability did not extend to adults who did not take an active part in the procurement or purveyance of alcohol.”)
-
AC29821 - Himmelstein v. Windsor (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant’s motion to strike was not fatally defective, (2) struck his nuisance count, (3) considered certain evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment and (4) granted the motion for summary judgment.”)
-
AC29512 - Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians v. Lorinsky (“The named defendant…claims that (1) the court incorrectly concluded that the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592, permitted Viejas’ case to be filed in state court, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s award of damages and (3) the court improperly denied the defendants’ motions for a mistrial and to set aside the verdict.”)
-
AC28503 - Lee v. Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C. (“Before us is a case in which the mortgagee that foreclosed the interest in certain Greenwich real estate of the plaintiff…did not honor the agreement it had made, as a part of a foreclosure judgment against Lee, to convey a valuable condominium to him but, instead, sold the condominium to another. Following the breach by the mortgagee, Lee brought an action against his former attorneys, the defendants…sounding in legal malpractice for their alleged failure to record a copy of the foreclosure judgment on the land records. The court…acting on a motion of the defendants, dismissed the action for lack of ripeness because damages were purely hypothetical due to the possibility that Lee could collect a judgment in another pending lawsuit involving the mortgagee and its principals, who had breached the agreement in the foreclosure action.”) 7/27/2009
Crespo v. Commissioner of Corrections - SC18241 (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because it is debatable among jurists of reason whether an actual conflict of interest existed between the petitioner and his criminal trial counsel that prevented the petitioner from receiving effective assistance of counsel at trial.”)
Aspetuck Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Weston - SC18105 (“This appeal arises from the decision of the tax assessor of the defendant, the town of Weston, denying the application of the plaintiff, Aspetuck Valley Country Club, Inc., for classification of certain of its golf course property as open space land pursuant to General Statutes § 12-107e.”) 7/24/2009
Regional School District No. 12 v. Bridgewater - SC18174 (Declaratory Judgment Action; "The issue in this appeal is whether the modification of the terms of the regional school plan establishing the plaintiff, Regional School District No. 12, to delete a provision whereby the plaintiff’s elementary grade levels would remain in their hometown schools, and to add a provision whereby those grade levels would be consolidated into a single school, constitutes an amendment to the plan under General Statutes § 10-47c.") 7/22/2009
State v Singleton (SC17795)
(Manslaughter in the first degree; self-defense; initial agressor exception; “We therefore conclude that, in light of the defendant’s concession that stabbing a person with a knife constitutes the use of deadly physical force, and the jury’s findings that the defendant intended to cause the victim serious physical injury and that he caused the victim’s
death by stabbing him with the knife, which were made before the jury reached the defendant’s claim of self-defense, the court’s instructions as to whether the defendant was justified in using deadly physical force were not improper.”
7/20/2009
Bender v. Bender SC18306 (Specific performance of a contract for sale of real property held by an estate; res judicata; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether res judicata barred the plaintiffs from bringing an action in the Superior Court for breach of contract and specific performance of the contract after the Probate Court had denied the plaintiffs’ petition for an order for specific performance of the contract.")
State v. Ebron SC17914 (Intentional manslaughter first degree with a firearm; whether trial court (1) precluded defendant from questioning potential jurors about their ability and willingness to follow instructions concerning the law of self-defense; (2) failed to give a jailhouse informant credibility instruction with respect to one of the State's key witnesses (3) instructed the jury about the retreat doctrine; (4) failed to instruct the jury sua sponte, on the doctrine of defense of premises.) 7/15/2009
Conboy v. State - SC17798 (Class action to recover damages pursuant to §31-51q; Sovereign immunity; "This case concerns the proper procedure for a trial court to employ in deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when jurisdictional facts are disputed by the parties.") 7/10/2009Mickey v. Mickey - SC18126 (“The principal issue in this appeal is whether disability benefits awarded under General Statutes § 5-192p1 as a result of a disability incurred after a marriage has been dissolved constitute distributable marital property under General Statutes § 46b-81.2 The defendant... appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his motion for clarification of that court’s financial orders, pursuant to which the plaintiff, Jacqueline Mickey, was granted 40 percent of the defendant’s monthly retirement benefits. On appeal, the defendant claims that, in denying his motion for clarification, the trial court improperly concluded that it had authority under § 46b-81 to distribute the defendant’s potential disability benefits at the time of dissolution. Specifically, the defendant contends that his disability benefits did not constitute distributable property under § 46b-81 because, at the time of dissolution, such benefits were no more than a mere expectancy and not a sufficiently concrete interest. The defendant also asserts that his disability benefits are not distributable because they were not actually awarded until after the date of dissolution, and they represent a substitute for lost wages rather than deferred compensation.”)
Griffin v. Commissioner of Correction - SC18287 (“The petitioner... appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying, in part, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims on appeal that the habeas court: (1) violated his right to due process by failing to find that the respondent, the commissioner of correction, had admitted certain allegations in the petitioner’s second amended petition; and (2) failed to find that the petitioner’s guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent and voluntary.”) 7/8/2009State v. Ovechka - SC17895 (“The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that a person assaulted with pepper spray had suffered ‘‘ ‘[s]erious physical injur[ies],’ ’’ as defined by General Statutes § 53a-3 (4), that would permit the inference that the spray was a ‘‘ ‘[d]angerous instrument,’ ’’ as defined by General Statutes § 53a-3 (7). The state appeals, upon our grant of its petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court’s judgment convicting the defendant... of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2). State v. Ovechka, 99 Conn. App. 679, 680–81, 915 A.2d
926 (2007).”)
State v. Arroyo - SC18031 (“....Thereafter, this court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the special credibility instruction mandated in State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452, 886 A.2d 777 (2005), was not applicable?’’; and (2) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the verdicts were not legally inconsistent?’’ State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 938, 937 A.2d 694 (2007).")
State v. Ramirez - SC18159 (“The defendant appealed from the judgment to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. Ramirez, 107 Conn. App. 51, 66, 943 A.2d 1138 (2008). Thereafter, this court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that a verdict of guilty of assault in the second degree is not inconsistent with a verdict of not guilty of carrying a dangerous weapon?’’ State v. Ramirez, 287 Conn. 915, 950 A.2d 1290 (2008).”) 7/7/2009
AC29616 Drain Dr. Inc. v. Jason Lyman (Motion to strike; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly held (1) that plumbing and piping work is subject to the provisions of the Home Improvement Act, General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., and (2) that the exemption in the Home Improvement Act for licensed plumbers did not apply to the plaintiff because the work it performed was beyond what it was licensed to do."
AC29126 Lewis v. Frazao Building Corp. (Home improvement contract; breach of contract; "The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) found that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of fact made by the attorney fact finder, (2) considered the plaintiff’s claim under the clearly erroneous standard of review and (3) failed to find Frazao personally liable for the breach of contract.")
AC29721 Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC. (Unjust enrichment; "...a purchaser of goods and intangibles challenges the validity of a jury verdict holding it liable for damages for unjust enrichment despite a concurrent jury finding of breach of contract by the vendors. The purchaser also challenges the trial court’s denial of its motion for attorney’s fees.")
AC28813, AC30000 Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd. (Plaintiff filed workers' compensation claim after her husband was found dead in the sleeper cab of his employer's truck; "...the defendants appealed to this court, claiming that (1) the workers’ compensation commissioner improperly found that work-related stress was a substantial factor in Henry Hummel’s death when no medical expert testified to that effect, (2) the board incorrectly held that the penalty pursuant to § 31-303 applied to nonpayment of an award pending appeal and (3) social security widow’s benefits should be credited against workers’ compensation benefits.") 7/6/2009
AC29526 - Goodspeed Airport , LLC v. East Haddam ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied the plaintiff any relief for the defendant’s wrongful refusal to grant an open space classification and (2) concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to classification for additional acreage of its property as open space pursuant to General Statutes § 12-107e.")
AC29425 - Martland v. Zoning Commission (Administrative appeal; application for special permit to excavate earth materials from a portion of a pond; whether record contained sufficient evidence that berm acted as a noise and vegetation buffer; whether court improperly failed to determine that the restoration condition was integral to the approval of the application for a special permit)
AC29602 - Town of Canterbury v. Deojay (Application for permit to use wetlands for agricultural use; whether the court's decision to deny defendant's request for leave to amend their answer was an abuse of discretion; whether court improperly determined that the defendant's agriclutural use was not exempt from the regulations; whether court improperly granted an injunction against defendant's continued agricultural use of their property)
State v. Connor - SC18099, SC18101 (“On appeal, the defendant, who represented himself both at the trial of his criminal case and at the hearing in his probation violation case, claims that the trial court improperly found that he was competent to waive his right to counsel in both of those cases.”)
Below are the search and seizure Appellate Court opinions issued in June 2009:
AC29769 - State v. Alexander ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain evidence after concluding improperly that he had failed to sustain his burden of establishing a subjective expectation of privacy in a common hallway in the apartment building in which he lived.")
AC29905 - State v. Graves ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence of a brown paper bag containing marijuana because it improperly (1) determined that a police officer was in 'hot pursuit' of the defendant and therefore did not need a warrant to conduct a search, (2) concluded that the officer, a municipal police officer from Rhode Island, was permitted to conduct police activities in Connecticut and (3) failed to hold that the officer’s search of an open field, which revealed the bag, was illegal because of the officer’s out-of-state status and because no exigent circumstances were present.")
AC29923, AC30224 - Utzler v. Braca ("This case concerns numerous claims arising out of a contract between an investor and a builder for the construction and sale of a luxury home in Westport.... In the principal appeal, the investor challenges the judgment in favor of the wife, and the builder cross appeals from the judgment in favor of the investor. In the second appeal, the builder and his wife contest the continuing validity of two prejudgment attachments of their properties.")
AC29526 - Goodspeed Airport , LLC v. East Haddam ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied the plaintiff any relief for the defendant’s wrongful refusal to grant an open space classification and (2) concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to classification for additional acreage of its property as open space pursuant to General Statutes § 12-107e.")
AC29217 - LaBow v. LaBow ("The named defendant, Myrna LaBow, appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering a distribution of the proceeds from the partition sale of certain property with 50 percent awarded to the defendant and 50 percent to the plaintiff Robert Rubin. Specifically, the defendant argues that the court denied her right to due process when it ordered this distribution without conducting an evidentiary hearing.")
AC29430 - Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (2) denied his discovery motions, (3) converted the return of the respondent, the commissioner of correction, into a motion to dismiss,(4) determined that trial counsel was effective and (5) denied the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.")
AC29456 - Davey B. v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) placed the burden on him to prove the absence of a tactical reason for counsel’s trial deficiencies and (2) held that the petitioner’s testimony could not be accepted without independent corroboration.")
AC29122 - Mock v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion when it denied his petition for certification to appeal and improperly rejected his claim that his guilty pleas in three separate informations were not knowing, intelligent and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.")
AC29076 - Zabian v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly refused to order specific performance of the terms of his plea agreement. Specifically, he alleges that he has not been credited with the proper amount of jail credit toward his sentence.")
7/2/2009
Waterbury Twin, LLC v. Renal Treatment Centers-Northeast, Inc. - SC18218 (“The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a landlord, after withdrawing its complaint in a summary process action, is required to serve a new notice to quit pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-231 prior to filing a new summary process action against its tenant.”)
6/30/2009
Below is a list of medical malpractice Appellate Court opinions issued in June 2009:
AC29597 - Sawicki v. New Britain General Hospital ("The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly denied her motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct. In response, the defendant claims, as an alternate ground for affirmance, that if the court had precluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness as requested, the plaintiff could not have met her burden of persuasion, entitling the defendant to a directed verdict.")
AC29687 - Cockayne v. Pilon ("In this professional negligence action, the plaintiff... appeals to this court following the denial of her motion to open the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Philip Pilon, her former dentist. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to open.")
Below is a list of criminal law Appellate Court opinions issued in June 2009:
AC29027 - State v. Luther ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated when a state’s witness testified in violation of the trial court’s ruling that granted the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude certain testimony, (2) his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated due to prosecutorial impropriety, and (3) the court improperly instructed the jury regarding consciousness of guilt.")
AC29905 - State v. Graves ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence of a brown paper bag containing marijuana because it improperly (1) determined that a police officer was in ‘‘hot pursuit’’ of the defendant and therefore did not need a warrant to conduct a search, (2) concluded that the officer, a municipal police officer from Rhode Island, was permitted to conduct police activities in Connecticut and (3) failed to hold that the officer’s search of an open field, which revealed the bag, was illegal because of the officer’s out-of-state status and because no exigent circumstances were present..")
AC29769 - State v. Alexander ("This appeal concerns the contours of the protections provided by the fourth amendment to the federal constitution. The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a conditional plea of nolo contendere pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, of possession of more than one kilogram of marijuana with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a), forgery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-139 (a) (3) and possession of marijuana with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain evidence after concluding improperly that he had failed to sustain his burden of establishing a subjective expectation of privacy in a common hallway in the apartment building in which he lived.")
AC28755 - State v. Richard W. ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, (2) he was prejudiced by prosecutorial impropriety, (3) his right to due process was violated by expert witness testimony as to the ultimate issue and (4) the state violated his state and federal constitutional rights by failing to disclose exculpatory information as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963).")
AC27807 - State v. Martin M. ("On appeal, the defendant first claims that the kidnapping statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. He also claims that the trial court (1) improperly failed to disclose fully all relevant material for cross-examination following an in camera review of certain confidential records, (2) allowed hearsay testimony of a nurse practitioner under the medical testimony exception to the hearsay rule and (3) improperly considered the recidivism rate of sexual predators in sentencing the defendant in violation of his constitutional rights.")
AC28925 - State v. Fernandes ("The sole issue on appeal is whether the transfer of the defendant’s case from the docket for juvenile matters to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court followed the requirements of the juvenile transfer statute and due process.")
AC28855 - State v. Schiller ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of twelve counts of identity theft in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 53a-129a and five counts of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the state’s improper comments during closing argument to the jury deprived him of a fair trial.")
AC28974 - State v. Sligh ("On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding of a violation of probation.") Concurrence
AC28535 - State v. Chimenti ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the state pre- sented insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) his fifth amendment right against double jeopardy was violated when he was acquitted of assault in the first degree in violation of
General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1) and subsequently con- victed of the lesser included offense of reckless assault in the second degree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC28483 - State v. Franklin ("The defendant... appeals fromthe judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (5) and 53a-8. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC28209 - State v. Saez ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction of larceny in the sixth degree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC25786 - State v. Kamel ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his constitutional right to counsel when it failed to conduct an inquiry into his allegation that he was indigent, (2) improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of a bag that belonged to him and (3) failed to conduct a preliminary on the record inquiry after learning that the jury was exposed during its deliberations to brass knuckles, which were marked for identification but not admitted into evidence as an exhibit.")
AC29352 - State v. Palangio ("He claims on appeal that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of robbery in the first degree as an accessory, (3) the charge to the jury on robbery in the first degree deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial and (4) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence written statements of an accomplice.")
AC28819 - State v. Coccomo ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of three counts of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a-56b (a), three counts of misconduct with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a- 57 and one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of her blood alcohol content, (2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction and (3) the court improperly admitted consciousness of guilt evidence.") Concurrence
AC30422 - State v. Martinez ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Enrique Martinez, the defendant, a continuance to secure the services of counsel of his choice in violation of his rights under the sixth amendment to the federal constitution.")
AC29003 - State v. Thomas W. ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) § 53-21 (a) (1) is void for vagueness, (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the four counts of which he was convicted and (3) the court made improper remarks to the jury, placing the burden of proof on him.")
AC28070 - State v. Varela ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial by jury, of accessory to larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-122 (a) (2), conspiracy to commit larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-122 (a) (2) and accessory to burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-103. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction on each of the
charges because the state could not prove her involvement in the crimes.")
AC29362 - State v. Oliphant ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and committing him to the custody of the commissioner of correction for six and one-half years. The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) restricted his cross-examination of the complaining witness, (2) refused to apply the exclusionary rule, (3) concluded that the evidence was sufficient to determine that he had violated his probation and (4) revoked his probation.")
AC28992 - State v. Boyd ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury on the doctrine of nonexclusive possession with regard to the firearm and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.")
-
AC29862 - Celini v. Celini
[Child Support] “The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff…. The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found him liable for certain extracurricular activity and college expenses of his children, (2) found him in contempt and (3) awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiff.”
-
AC30430 - Clark v. Clark
[Dissolution of Marriage] “In this matter, we are asked to address the right of former counsel to intervene as a party in a marital dissolution action. The proposed intervenor, the law firm of Rutkin and Oldham, LLC (Rutkin), appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion to intervene as a party defendant. We raised the question on the court’s own motion of whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of a final judgment because the proposed intervenor cannot make a colorable claim to intervention as a matter of right.”
-
AC29274 - Dionne v. Dionne
[Child Support] “The determinative issue in this appeal is whether a trial court properly may continue a hearing on a motion for contempt when the alleged contemnor’s attorney represents to the court that the court-ordered child support payment is ‘in the mail.’”
-
AC29063 - Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld
[Dissolution of Marriage] “Trial courts have inherent power to manage their caseloads in order to achieve the expeditious disposition of cases. See Krevis v. Bridgeport, 262 Conn. 813, 819, 817 A.2d 628 (2003); In re Mongillo, 190 Conn. 686, 691, 461 A.2d 1387 (1983), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Salmon, 250 Conn. 147, 154–55, 735 A.2d 333 (1999). Accordingly, a defendant’s constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his choice does not grant a defendant an unlimited opportunity to obtain alternate counsel on the eve of trial. See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 725, 631 A.2d 288 (1993). The dispositive issue in this marital dissolution case is whether these principles govern the defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his last minute motion for a continuance to enable him to come to this state from Antigua to act as his own counsel in substitution for prior counsel of his choice.”
-
AC29863 - Senk v. Senk
[Dissolution of Marriage] “The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a limited contested trial, dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff…. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) failed to recuse itself from the case after hearing another matter involving the defendant, (2) failed to take into account the evidence in the record as a whole and (3) allowed the submission of evidence that was irrelevant and prejudicial to the defendant.”
-
AC30812 - Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler
[Dissolution of Marriage] “This appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court dissolving the parties’ marriage. The defendant…claims that the court improperly denied his motions to continue the dissolution trial until after the disposition of a pending criminal case charging him with intentionally setting fire to property owned by the plaintiff…. He argues that the court’s denials deprived him of the opportunity to present a defense in the dissolution action, thereby depriving him of his constitutional due process rights, because he invoked his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
-
AC29053 - In re S.D.
“This appeal arises out of a termination of parental rights petition filed by the petitioner, the mother of the minor child, in the Court of Probate for the district of East Hartford pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-715. Following the termination of his parental rights as to the child, the respondent, the child’s father, appealed from that judgment to the trial court, which again terminated his parental rights. On appeal to this court, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to find that reasonable efforts were made to locate and to reunite him with the child, (2) found that he had abandoned the child and that there was no ongoing parent-child relationship and (3) found that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate his parental rights.”
-
AC28309, AC29468 - Burton v. Stamford
“In AC 28309, the defendant, the city of Stamford, claims that the court abused its discretion in (1) permitting the plaintiff Godfrey Burton to amend his complaint after it had directed a verdict in favor of the defendant and (2) granting the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the directed verdict. In AC 29468, the plaintiff maintains that the court improperly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in light of its determination that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law on the issue of causation.”
-
AC29484 - Leseburg v. O'Grady
“Rather than appeal from the decrees of a court of probate, the plaintiff chose to pursue a cause of action against the Probate Court judge for civil damages. For more than 200 years, the doctrine of judicial immunity has required dismissal of such actions. This case is no exception.”
-
AC27290, AC27970, AC28442 - Rossman v. Morasco
“In AC 27290 and AC 27970, the plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) denying his motion to set aside the verdict, (2) denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, (3) denying his motion in limine and (4) granting Guardian Alarm’s motions for punitive damages and for attorney’s fees on its counterclaim alleging a violation of CUTPA. In AC 28442, Guardian Alarm claims that the court improperly denied its posttrial motion for a constructive trust.”
-
AC29626 - Watts v. Chittenden
“The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff…on his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found that she failed to prove a statute of limitations defense, (2) found that she failed to prove her privilege defense and (3) awarded lost wages to the plaintiff.”
-
AC29572 - Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall (“The plaintiffs…appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant…in an action for the enforcement of a nonsolicitation agreement in an employment contract. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that the nonsolicitation agreement was unenforceable and meaningless.”)
Below is a legal malpractice and attorney discipline Appellate Court opinion issued in June 2009:
-
AC29584 - Rosenblit v. Laschever (“The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following its granting of the motion for judgment filed by the substitute plaintiff…. The plaintiff’s motion asked the court to enter a judgment in the amount of $15,000 in his favor on the basis of a settlement agreement between the parties. The defendant argues on appeal that the court improperly concluded that the agreement entered into by the parties was a binding settlement agreement.”) 6/29/2009State v. Tabone - SC18119 ("On appeal, the defendant claims that his total effective sentence after remand is illegal because: (1) the substitution of a ten year term of probation for the ten year period of special parole that originally was imposed unconstitutionally enlarged the sentence in violation of his due process rights under the federal and state constitutions; (2) the sentence was predicated on a personal agreement between the trial court and the state’s attorney in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 53a-32 (b) (4) and the separation of powers doctrine; and (3) the sentence violates the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution and the Connecticut constitution.")
6/26/2009
Bayer v. Showmotion (SC18227) (Summary process; motion to dismiss; whether defect in notice to quit deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction; whether the court should have dismissed, or in the alternative stayed the action on the basis of the prior pending action doctrine; whether court's oral finding that the defendant had not exercised its option to purchase the property was clearly erroneous.) 6/25/2009
Machado v. Hartford SC18224 (Defective roadway; "...[W]hether a municipality may be held liable under General Statutes §13a-1491 for injuries caused by a highway defect created by the negligence of a third party contractor hired by the municipality to repair the highway.)
Dias v. Grady - SC18265 (Medical malpractice; motion to dismiss; whether CGS §52-190a required plaintiff to attach written opinion addressing causation of injury.) 6/19/2009
State v. Coward - SC17706 (Manslaughter first degree in violation of § 53a-55 (a) (3); conspiracy to commit robbery; lesser included offense charge; "On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) we should vacate his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree because reckless manslaughter predicated on criminal liability under the doctrine set forth in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, (1946), is not a cognizable crime under Connecticut law; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the concept of consciousness of guilt; and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the applicable reasonable doubt standard.")
Buttermilk Farms, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission - SC18244 (Administrative appeal; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the commission had not exceeded its statutory authority under § 8-25 by denying the plaintiff’s subdivision application because the plaintiff refused to include off-site sidewalks in its subdivision plan.")
Garcia v. Hartford - SC18205 ( Mandamus; Whether retiree is employee under parties' collective bargaining agreement; employee, defined; "The sole issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Edwin Garcia, a retired police officer, is required to seek relief through the grievance procedures under the collective bargaining agreement (agreement) between the named defendant, the city of Hartford, and the Hartford police union (union) before he can bring a mandamus action to compel the defendant to comply with a provision in that agreement allowing the defendant’s employees to trade in accumulated unused sick time in order to increase their monthly pension benefits.")
State v. Angel T. - SC18121 (Sexual assault first degree in violation of § 53a-70 (a) (2); Two counts of risk of injury to child in violation of § 53-21 (1) and (2); "On appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the prosecutor had committed impropriety that deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial by introducing evidence of, and arguing during summations about, the fact that the defendant, while being represented by an attorney, had failed to meet with the police during their investigation of the victim’s allegations.") 6/15/2009State v. Gilberto L - SC18213 (One count of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (1), and one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2); "The defendant claims, inter alia, that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered because the trial court violated his right under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and Practice Book §§ 44-74 and 44-85 to be present at trial.") Perricone v. Perricone - SC17683 (Dissolution of marriage; "The defendant appeals from the order of the trial court enforcing the confidentiality agreement and restraining her from disseminating any information pertaining to her divorce from the plaintiff or any derogatory or defamatory information about the parties. The defendant claims that: (1) the parties’ separation agreement was fully integrated and, therefore, it nullified the confidentiality agreement; (2) even if the confidentiality agreement was not nullified, the trial court’s order constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on her freedom of speech in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution; (3) even if the order does not violate the first amendment, it violates article first, §§ 4 and 5, of the constitution of Connecticut;(4) the confidentiality agreement is void as violating public policy; and (5) the confidentiality agreement is void for indefiniteness.") Isham v. Isham- SC18270 (Dissolution of marriage; "The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly determined that the alimony provision in the parties’ separation agreement (agreement) was clear and unambiguous and did not include the defendant’s bonuses. She also claims that the trial court improperly refused to permit the introduction of extrinsic evidence concerning the parties’ intent with respect to the alimony provision.") 6/8/2009SC17739 - Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which had rendered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant. Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 96 Conn. App. 741, 901 A.2d 1258 (2006). Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that: (1) the trial court properly excluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness; and (2) the trial court properly instructed the jury on the superseding cause doctrine.")
6/5/2009
Below is the workers' compensation law Appellate Court opinion issued in May 2009:
AC28918 - Testone v. C. R. Gibson Co. ("...[P]laintiff claims that the board should have determined that the commissioner improperly admitted the three reports and improperly relied on those reports in denying the plaintiff temporary partial disability benefits. The plaintiff also claims that the board improperly affirmed the commissioner’s ruling denying the plaintiff’s motion to correct and the determination that the plaintiff had not suffered a compensable recurrence or relapse under General Statutes § 31-307b.")
AC29441 - King's Highway Associates v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Whether... "the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the commission lacked authority to consider the water supply for the resubdivision and (2) substituted its judgment for that of the commission with respect to (a) a drainage plan and (b) the need for sidewalks in the plaintiff’s proposed resubdivision.") 6/4/2009
PJM Associates, LC v. Bridgeport - SC18229 ("The principal issue in this joint appeal is whether a municipal tax assessor, in determining the present value of real property used primarily for the purpose of producing rental income, has authority under General Statutes § 12-63c to compel the filing of income and expense reports by the property owner in years in which there is no citywide revaluation or interim revaluation of properties in the same class as the owner’s property.") 6/2/2009
AC29927 - South Windsor Cemetery Assn., Inc. v. Lindquist ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1)the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike four counts of his seven count counterclaim and (2) he was deprived of due process of law.")
AC29793 - Silver v. Holtman ("In this appeal, we examine the narrow issue of whether the plaintiff Charles S. Silver has standing to seek a writ of mandamus to order the defendant town clerk of East Granby, Elisabeth W. Birmingham, to re-record an affidavit of facts (affidavit). We also determine whether the plaintiff Gail McCue, as executrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Walter T. McCue, Jr., has standing to bring an action for damages.")
AC29289 - Heyse v. Case ("In this case, the principal issue is whether a title insurance policy provided coverage for a dispute about subdivision rights between the insured and another member of a planned community organized under General Statutes § 47-220. Concluding that two exclusions in the insured’s policy establish that she has no coverage for this dispute, the trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. The insured has appealed.")
AC29680 - Ryan v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal and improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve his right to appeal following his guilty plea.")
AC28397 - Carmon v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he was not deprived of the effective assistance of trial and prior habeas counsel.")
AC29199 - Delgado v. Commissioner of Correction ("Claims of judicial error that a criminal defendant failed to raise on direct appeal are reviewable in a petition for habeas corpus only if the petitioner can show 'cause and prejudice' for his prior default. Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30, 40, 779 A.2d 80 (2001). To comply with this requirement, 'the petitioner must demonstrate good cause for his failure to raise a claim at trial or on direct appeal and actual prejudice resulting from the impropriety claimed in the habeas petition.’ Id. In this case, in the absence of such a showing, the habeas court not only denied the petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus but also denied the petitioner’s request for certification to appeal.")
Below is the search and seizure Appellate Court opinion issued in May 2009:
AC28448 - State v. Ryder ("The only remaining issue requiring our attention is whether the court properly denied the motions of the defendant, Gary Ryder, to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of his home and to dismiss the case.") 6/1/2009
-
AC28711 - Dougan v. Dougan
[Dissolution of Marriage] “The question raised by this appeal is whether the provision of a stipulated judgment requiring the payment of interest, upon default, from the date of the stipulated judgment to the date of default is enforceable. The defendant…claims that the court improperly (1) held such a provision of her stipulated dissolution judgment unenforceable and (2) refused to enforce the provision that it previously had found fair and equitable.”
-
AC28847 - Malave v. Ortiz
[Child Custody] “This appeal, arising under Practice Book (2006), § 25-26 (g), concerns the application of the probable cause standard to a request for leave to file a motion to modify a child custody order. General Statutes § 46b-56 grants the trial court the authority to render orders concerning custody. Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn. App. 50, 55, 732 A.2d 808 (1999). Our Supreme Court has limited the trial court’s broad discretion to modify custody, requiring that a modification order be based on ‘either a material change of circumstances which alters the court’s finding of the best interests of the child . . . or a finding that the custody order sought to be modified was not based upon the best interests of the child.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The trial court’s guiding principle in modifying any order with respect to custody is the best interest of the child. See Watrous v. Watrous, 108 Conn. App. 813, 824, 949 A.2d 557 (2008).”
-
AC26999 - Feinberg v. Feinberg
[Child Custody] “The defendant…appeals from the postdissolution order of the trial court granting the plaintiff…physical custody of the parties’ minor child. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly relied on outdated evidence and factually unsupported findings to determine that the best interest of the child would be served by primarily residing with the plaintiff and attending Simsbury public schools.”
-
AC29059 - Kennedy v. Kennedy
“A judgment of civil contempt is improper if ‘the contemnor, through no fault of his own, was unable to obey the court’s order.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685, 692, 935 A.2d 1021 (2007). Accordingly, ‘a court may not find a person in contempt without considering the circumstances surrounding the violation to determine whether such violation was wilful.’ Wilson v. Wilson, 38 Conn. App. 263, 275–76, 661 A.2d 621 (1995). In this highly contentious family litigation, the plaintiff’s principal claim on appeal is that, because protective and restraining orders prohibited him from having ‘any contact in any manner’ with the defendant, his former wife, the trial court improperly found that he wilfully had failed to honor his obligation to notify her that he had obtained employment.”
-
AC28699 - Ucci v. Ucci
"The defendant…appeals from the postjudgment order of the trial court denying his motion for modification of alimony payments to the plaintiff.... On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly based its determination on the criteria set forth in General Statutes §§ 46b-86 and 46b-82 rather than the criterion for modification set forth in the parties’ separation agreement as incorporated into the judgment of dissolution."
-
AC29853 - Barber v. Barber
[Child Support] "Although Connecticut generally permits a creditor to enforce a money judgment against any property of the adjudged debtor; see General Statutes § 52-350f; most family support judgments are exempt from this rule. See General Statutes § 52-350a (13). Accordingly, our Supreme Court has held that a family support judgment that is based on a stipulated agreement by the parties 'is to be regarded and construed as a contract.' Barnard v. Barnard, 214 Conn. 99, 109, 570 A.2d 690 (1990). The dispositive issue in this case is whether the trial court properly relied on these governing principles in concluding that a former spouse may not enforce a judgment incorporating a stipulated agreement for child support without introducing evidence of the arrearage allegedly outstanding and unpaid."
-
AC29904 - In re Lyric H.
“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor daughter, Lyric. On appeal, the respondent claims that Lyric was entitled, under the state and federal constitutions, to conflict free legal representation in the termination proceedings and that she was deprived of that right. Because the record is not adequate for us to determine that Lyric’s attorney indeed had a conflict of interest, we do not reach the substantive claims set forth by the respondent…”
-
AC29829 - Mullin v. Guidant Corp.
[Product Liability] “On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that their two count complaint was preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c et seq. (MDA).”
-
AC29619 - Sturgeon v. Sturgeon
“In this negligence action…the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to set aside the jury’s verdict and for a new trial on the ground that the jury could not have reached its conclusion reasonably and legally, (2) denied his motion on the basis of improper remarks made to the jury by the defendant’s counsel during closing arguments and (3) admitted a hearsay statement, limited the plaintiff’s right to cross-examine the witness regarding that statement and failed to provide curative instructions to the jury.”
-
AC29722 - IN Energy Solutions, Inc. v. Realgy, LLC
“On appeal, Realgy claims that the court improperly calculated the damages it awarded to INES. INES cross appeals, claiming that the court improperly (1) failed to include damages for lost profits in its breach of contract award and failed to rule on INES’ request for certain other damages, (2) construed and applied the law regarding tortious interference with a business relationship, (3) found that it could not prevail on its claim alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., (4) rejected its defamation claim and (5) determined that the defendant Michael Vrtis, the managing director of Realgy, was acting in a corporate capacity and, therefore, could not be held personally liable for his actions.” Below are the legal malpractice and attorney discipline Appellate Court opinions issued in May 2009:
-
AC28868 - Moore v. Crone
“The pro se plaintiff…appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendant.... The plaintiff’s two count amended complaint alleged that the defendant was negligent in his legal representation of the plaintiff for purposes of his direct appeal from a criminal conviction and that the defendant breached his contract with the plaintiff. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that an expert is not required for him to prevail on his claims and that the court should have considered his case on the merits.”
Wasniewski v. Quick & Reilly, Inc. - SC18160 ("The plaintiff initiated this breach of contract action to recover funds that his father had deposited without the plaintiff’s knowledge in an account bearing the plaintiff’s name at the defendant brokerage firm. The certified issues in this appeal are: (1) whether ‘the Appellate Court [majority] properly conclude[d] that valid delivery of an inter vivos gift was effected by the plaintiff’s father to the plaintiff’; and (2) whether ‘the Appellate Court [majority] properly determine[d] that the plaintiff was the intended third party beneficiary of [an] alleged contract entered into between the plaintiff’s father and the defendant . . . .’”)
American Progressive Life & Health Ins. Co. of New York v. Better Benefits, LLC - SC17940 ("Although the defendants contest the propriety of the granting of the motion for summary judgment on several grounds, the dispositive issue is whether the trial court properly granted the motion when it challenged the legal sufficiency of the counterclaim, and the defendants were not given the opportunity to replead.")
Below is a list of criminal law Appellate Court opinions issued in May 2009:
AC28273 - State v. Gibson ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of failure to appear in the first degree and (2) the court incorrectly found that he violated his probation. The defendant additionally claims that impropriety by the prosecutor violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. We agree with the defendant’s allegation of prosecutorial impropriety and, accordingly, reverse the conviction on the count of failure to appear in the first degree and remand the matter for a new trial.") Dissent.
AC30421 - State v. Llera ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted a police officer to testify that at the time of the defendant’s arrest, the defendant had in his possession a .40 caliber Glock handgun, and, if so, whether the testimony was harmful.")
AC28373 - State v. Crespo ("The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) excluded evidence related to the prior sexual history of the victim, (2) permitted the state to present evidence concerning the behavior of sexual assault victims generally and (3) failed, following an in camera review of the victim’s medical records, to disclose fully to the defendant material information from such records.")
AC28498 - State v. Wright ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly refused to disclose information contained in the victim’s Juvenile Court file after its in camera inspection of the file and, therefore, denied him his right to confront and to cross-examine witnesses under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution2 and his due process right to obtain exculpatory evidence under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. The defendant requests that this court review the victim’s Juvenile Court file to determine whether the trial court properly concluded that it did not contain exculpatory information and, if we disagree with the court’s conclusion, that we remand the case for a new trial and issue an order releasing the file to him.") Concurrence.
AC28596 - State v. Saunders ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the state adduced insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction, (2) the trial court improperly allowed the state to comment on missing witnesses during final argument and (3) the state engaged in prosecutorial impropriety during final argument and, therefore, deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial.")
AC28448 - State v. Ryder ("We return to the case of the large reptile discovered by police in a Greenwich home. In an earlier decision by this court, State v. Ryder, 111 Conn. App. 271, 958 A.2d 797 (2008), we noted our inability to determine whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the present appeal and remanded the case for further fact-finding on that question. Now that the case has returned to us from the trial court, we conclude that we do have subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, the only remaining issue requiring our attention is whether the court properly denied the motions of the defendant, Gary Ryder, to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of his home and to dismiss the case.")
AC29420 - State v. Bereis ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of evasion of responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 14- 224 (b) and failure to appear in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-173. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied her motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.")
AC29892 - State v. Jefferson ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly failed to give an instruction to the jury on intentional manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-55a and 53a-55 (a) (1), as a lesser offense included within the crime of murder.")
AC29158 - State v. Coleman ("The defendant, Rory Coleman, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) and possession of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (d). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and (2) the court improperly instructed the jury.")
AC29029 - State v. Andrews ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of the crimes of attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-59 (a) (1) and attempt to commit assault of a peace officer in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a- 49 (a) (2) and 53a-167c (a) (1).1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of either of those charges.")
AC28718 - State v. Baptiste ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court inadequately instructed the jury on the essential elements of §§ 53a- 167a and 53a-167c and, consequently, the instruction relieved the state of its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element set forth in the statutes, and (2) the court improperly permitted the state to question him about his fourteen prior arrests for interfering with a police officer and engaging police officers in pursuit.") Dissent.
Below is a list of medical malpractice Appellate Court opinions issued in May 2009:
AC28932 - Kelly v. Albertsen ("The issue presented in this case is whether the trial court improperly failed to allow the plaintiff, Robert J. Kelly, to conduct discovery prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, Peter C. Albertsen, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.") 5/26/2009
Soracco v. Williams Scotsman, Inc. - SC17856 (Intervening plaintiff; standing; Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the allocation of settlement proceeds was reasonable)
J.C. Penney Corp. v. Manchester - SC18141 (Tax appeal; Whether..."trial court improperly concluded that...the plaintiff did not meet the applicable tax filing requirements, and, therefore, was not aggrieved and could not litigate its overvaluation claim.")
Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction - SC18247 (Habeas corpus; "[W]hether the habeas court properly found that the actions of the petitioner’s trial counsel, William T. Gerace, in obtaining the trial court’s permission to withdraw from representing the petitioner at his criminal trial, did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.")
State v. Cecil J. - SC17890 (Sexual assault; risk of injury;
sixth amendment; rape shield statute §54-86f; Whether Appellate Court properly determined that the trial court’s exclusion of evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct was proper because the defendant’s offer of proof lacked the specificity necessary to establish that the evidencewas relevant.)
5/22/2009
Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. - SC17807 (Damages for twenty-three cases of alleged sexual abuse; motions to intervene by four newspaper companies; motion to vacate sealing orders issued by trial court; motion to disqualify the judicial authority assigned to hear the intervenors’ motion to vacate the sealing orders; motion for new protective order; presumption of public access pursuant to rule of practice § 11-20A and whether it was limited to judicial documents.)
5/20/2009
Burton v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection - SC18173 (Connecticut Environmental Protection Act- § 22a-20; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly determined that (1) she lacks standing under § 22a-16, and (2) § 22a-20 does not provide an independent cause of action.") 5/18/2009
State v. Michael H. - SC18195 (Sexual assault fourth degree in violation of § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A); risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2); "On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the trial court improperly deprived him of his right to a fair trial when it denied his pretrial motion for a 'taint hearing' to assess the reliability and admissibility of the testimony of the victim; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of both counts.")
State v. Popeleski - SC18250 (Operating motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of § 14-227a (a) (1); reckless driving in violation of § 14-222 (a); evading responsibility in operation of motor vehicle in violation of § 14-224 (b); "The defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) excused a juror who had had a dispute with a judicial marshal; and (2) admitted evidence regarding the horizontal gaze nystagmus3 test that had been administered to the defendant prior to his arrest.")
State v. Dupas - SC17954 (Felony murder in violation of § 53a-54c; conspiracy to commit kidnapping in first degree in violations of §§ 53a-48 and 53a-92 (a) (2); conspiracy to commit sexual assault in first degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 and 53a-70 (a) (1) and (3); claim that trial court abused discretion by denying defendant's motion for modification of sentence after defendant testified against codefendant pursuant to agreement with state.)
State v. Bryant - SC18147 (Possession of narcotics in violation of § 21a-279; "In his certified appeal to this court, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the decision of the trial court to admit into evidence testimony about police investigations into narcotics activity at a nearby house, to which the defendant had fled, and then subsequently failed to give an adequate curative and limiting instruction to the jury.")
State v. Browne - SC18065 (Possession of marijuana; whether seizure of marijuana was lawful under plain view doctrine; validity of warrant that mistakenly authorized search for and seizure of cocaine and crack cocaine instead of marijuana; scrivener's error; severance doctrine; conditional plea of nolo contendere; motion to suppress.)
State v. Melendez - SC18052 (Two counts of sale of narcotics by person who is not drug-dependent in violation of § 21a-278; Two counts of sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of licensed child day care center in violation of § 21a-278; claim that trial court improperly denied defendant's motion to compel state to renew plea offer that defendant previously had rejected; claim that trial court improperly permitted state to introduce into evidence digital video disc (DVD) containing video clips of alleged drug transactions; claim of prosecutorial impropriety.) 5/14/2009State v. Orr - SC18172 ("The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court improperly: (1) concluded that the dangerous client exception to the social worker-client confidentiality rule established in General Statutes § 52-146q (c) (2) extends to in-court testimony, and thus improperly ordered the social worker who had previously treated the defendant to testify; and (2) admitted uncharged misconduct evidence, including the testimony of four witnesses for the state.")
5/13/2009
Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc. - SC17977 ("The defendants appealed from the judgment of the trial court, claiming that the court improperly had rejected their defense of the qualified privilege for intracorporate communications because it failed to apply an actual malice standard when determining that the defendants had lost the privilege and because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of actual malice.") 5/12/2009
Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Law - SC18175 ("In this tax appeal, we consider whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the terms and provisions of General Statutes §§ 12- 217ee and 12 217n, which concern business tax credits for certain research and development expenses. The plaintiff, Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., appealed to the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 12- 237, from the decision of the defendant, Pamela Law, the commissioner of revenue services, denying the plaintiff’s request to exchange its research and development tax credit carried forward from income year 2003 for a credit refund in income year 2004 pursuant to §§ 12-217ee and 12-217n. The plaintiff now appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal after concluding that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the relevant terms of § 12 217n by prematurely attempting to exchange its research and development tax credit from income year 2003.") 5/11/2009
Donahue v. Veridiem, Inc. - SC18237 ("The appeal in the present case raises the issue of whether an employer subject to the conclusive presumption is precluded from challenging the claimant’s proof through crossexamination and submission of a written argument. The plaintiff, Maura Donahue, appeals from the decision of the compensation review board (board) affirming the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner (commissioner)denying the plaintiff’s claim for compensation for medical care and permanent partial disability for her back injury. In a decision issued prior to Harpaz, the commissioner had concluded that, although the plaintiff’s back injury is conclusively presumed to be compensable because the named defendant, Veridiem, Inc., failed to file a timely notice contesting the plaintiff’s claim, the plaintiff’s evidence that this compensable injury had caused her need for the medical care and her disability for which she sought compensation was not credible. The plaintiff contends that the board’s decision must be reversed because the commissioner improperly allowed the defendant to contest her claim by challenging her proof.")
State v. Sanseverino - SC17786, SC17787 ("This case comes to us on the state’s motion for reconsideration en banc. In State v. Sanseverino, 287 Conn. 608, 949 A.2d 1156 (2008),1 this court concluded, inter alia, that the defendant, Paolino Sanseverino, was entitled to reversal of his first degree kidnapping conviction in light of our decision in State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008).... Following the release of our opinion in Sanseverino, the state filed a motion for reconsideration en banc, which we granted. In its motion, the state first contends that this court improperly barred the state from seeking to retry the defendant for kidnapping in the first degree by ordering that a judgment of acquittal be rendered on that charge. Second, the state contends that, if it elects not to retry the defendant for kidnapping, it nevertheless is entitled to a judgment of conviction of unlawful restraint in the second degree under General Statutes § 53a-96 as a lesser included offense of kidnapping in the first degree. As this court recently has acknowledged....")
State v. Juan L. - SC18295 ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 54-56d (m), which governs the commitment or release of criminal defendants who are not competent to stand trial, applies in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters. The state appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing juvenile delinquency proceedings brought against the respondent, Juan L., on the ground that he was not competent to stand trial, and that § 54-56d (m) did not apply in this case.") 5/8/2009
New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority - SC17946, SC18109 ("The named defendant, Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, in two separate appeals, challenges the judgment of the trial court awarding a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiffs after finding that the defendant had been unjustly enriched by its retention of certain lawsuit settlement proceeds, and certain postjudgment orders.")
New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority - SC18110 ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the named defendant, Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, has standing to challenge the amount of the attorney’s fees awarded to the counsel for the plaintiffs, a certified class of seventy municipalities.") New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority - SC17880 ("The question presented in this appeal is whether the trial court properly granted the plaintiffs’ application for a prejudgment remedy to attach certain settlement proceeds obtained by the defendant. We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.") New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority - SC17879 ("The principal issue in this appeal is whether the trial court violated the defendant’s right to due process when it found the defendant in civil contempt of its November 20, 2006 order restricting the defendant’s communications with the plaintiffs.") 5/6/2009
Here is the contract law opinion for April 2009:
- AC30028 General Electric Capital Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Rizvi
(Defendants guaranteed all obligations incurred by Inter-Island Air, Inc. (Inter-Island), a corporation organized under the laws of Puerto Rico, to the plaintiff under a lease agreement for an aircraft; whether the trial court improperly granted the application for the prejudgment remedy because the judge had incorrectly determined that the contemplated action supporting the plaintiff’s application was an independent domestic action rather than an action in aid of a pending foreign action that is not contemplated by the prejudgment remedy statutes; whether the court misapplied the law of the case doctrine with respect to the determination that the contemplated action supporting the plaintiff’s application was an independent domestic action rather than an action in aid of a pending foreign action.) Here are the workers' compensation opinions for April 2009:
-
AC29461 Dechio v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
("Is an appeal taken from a supplemental order directing the fund to compensate a plaintiff a timely appeal challenging the findings and awards preceding that order if that appeal was taken outside the mandated twenty days from the issuing of the operative finding and award?")
Dissent
-
AC29346 Stec v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
("...[W]hether the filing of an appeal from the decision of a compensation commissioner to the workers’ compensation review board (board) outside of the statutory time period for filing such an appeal deprives the board of subject matter jurisdiction.")
Concurrence Here are the land use opinions issued in April 2009:
- AC29089 Holt v. Zoning Board of Appeals
(Subject matter jurisdiction; whether zoning enforcement officer's letter was an appealable "decision" under General Statutes §8-7 and §8.10.2 of the regulations)
- AC29248 Kilburn v. Planning & Zoning Commission
("The plaintiffs, Edward Wucik, Teresa Izzarelli, Chester Sajkowicz and Shirley Sajkowicz, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their zoning appeal from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of Preston (commission) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs contend that the court improperly concluded that their complaint failed to allege a factual basis for statutory aggrievement.")
- AC29091 Wucik v. Planning & Zoning Commission
(Standing; whether court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction as a result of failure of the plaintiff's to allege a factual basis for aggrievement in their appeal to the court) 5/4/2009
-
AC29338 - Johnson v. Clark
“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly concluded that the family support magistrate did not exceed his authority when he continued the matter of a contempt citation for purposes of monitoring the compliance of the defendant after he paid the purge amount and (2) the family support magistrate improperly disregarded the court’s decisional law.”
-
AC28443 - Reichert v. Bronson
“The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff…to modify a maintenance order. She claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had demonstrated extreme hardship as required under New York law.”
-
AC29948 - Gail R. v. Bubbico
“The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for a restraining order filed by the plaintiff…pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-15, for the protection of the plaintiff and her sons. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court’s order constituted an abuse of discretion because there was insufficient evidence before the court to find that he presented a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury, within the meaning of the statute, to the plaintiff or her to sons.”
-
AC29507 - Talenti v. Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co.
“The plaintiffs claim that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the defendant maintains its principal place of business in Connecticut, is authorized to do business in Connecticut, accepts service of process in Connecticut and was served properly with process in accordance with General Statutes § 52-57 (c), and they seek redress for acts that took place in Connecticut.”
-
AC29494 - Tutko v. Goodman
“In this negligence action, the pro se plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant…after a jury verdict. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) added great confusion to his presentation of his case, (2) precluded him from presenting the testimony of his treating physician and (3) denied his motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.”
-
AC29152 - Bagg v. Thompson
“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her complaint brought against the defendant town of Thompson pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-149, the municipal highway defect statute. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it was without subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of its incorrect determination that the defendant municipality possessed sovereign, rather than governmental, immunity.”
-
AC29598 - Tuccio Development, Inc. v. Neumann
[CUTPA; Statutory Theft] “The plaintiff…appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant…. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact, thus entitling the defendant to judgment as a matter of law.”
Below is the legal malpractice and attorney discipline Appellate Court opinion issued in April 2008:
- AC29254 - Tuccio v. Garamella ("The plaintiffs...have appealed from the judgment of nonsuit rendered against them and from the denial of their motion to set aside the judgment of nonsuit. The plaintiffs claim that nonsuit as a discovery sanction under the circumstances in this case was unduly harsh and an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.")
-
AC29058 - Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Lax ("In this foreclosure action, the defendants...appeal from the trial court’s partial judgment rendered against them after the court granted the motion filed by the substitute plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), to strike their counterclaim.")
-
AC29012 - Centimark Corp. v. Village Manor Associates Ltd. Partnership ("On appeal, Centimark claims that the court improperly (1) found in favor of Village Manor on Village Manor’s claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation,
breach of contract and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (2) assessed damages on certain counts of Village Manor’s counterclaim.")
-
AC29578 - Lestorti v. DeLeo ("The defendant...appeals from the judgment the trial court rendered following its granting of the motion of the plaintiff...to strike the defendant’s counterclaim for equitable contribution.")
-
AC29916 - Oronoque Shores Condominium Assn. No. 1, Inc. v. Smulley ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) both special assessments were incorrectly apportioned, thereby rendering them invalid, (2) notice of the special litigation assessment was improperly published and (3) because the special assessment liens were invalid, the association was not a prevailing party and, therefore, not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.")
Below is the search and seizure Appellate Court opinion issued in April 2009:
AC28567 - State v. Richards ("The defendant argues that the court’s denial of the motion to suppress was improper because the investigatory detention was not constitutionally permissible and the evidence seized from the automobile was the fruit of this police activity.")
AC29598 - Tuccio Development, Inc. v. Neumann ("The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact, thus entitling the defendant to judgment as a matter of law.")
AC29455 - Hamlin v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion for a continuance and (2) determined that he had failed to prove that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel.")
AC28985 - Toles v. Commissioner of Correction ("In this appeal, the petitioner claims that the court...improperly rejected his claims alleging the ineffective assistance of (1) the counsel who represented him during his plea hearing and (2) the counsel who represented him during his violation of probation hearing.
AC28983 - Williams v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification and improperly rejected his claims that a new trial should be granted because his pleas were not knowing, intelligent and voluntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.")
AC29238 - Borrelli v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that (1) by pleading guilty, he had waived the right to assert at his habeas trial a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (2) he had procedurally defaulted on his claims that (A) the state violated its plea agreement with him when it did not ensure that he receive proper credit for certain presentence confinement and (B) the discharge date established by the respondent, the commissioner of correction, was inconsistent with the plea agreement and (3) even if he had not procedurally defaulted, there was no merit to his claims regarding (A) the plea agreement and (B) the respondent’s calculation of presentence confinement credit.")
AC29155 - Council v. Commissioner of Correction
(“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly determined that the state did not argue inconsistent theories to obtain a conviction at his criminal trial and, therefore, did not violate his right to due process.”) 5/1/2009
State v. Richardson (SC18145) (Motion to dismiss; subject matter jurisdiction; waiver of appearance; missing witness nolle; "[W]hether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to dismiss filed after the state entered a nolle prosequi without objection." 4/30/2009
Below is a list of administrative appeal Appellate Court opinions issued in April 2009:
AC26998 - Shah v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act ("The defendant administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining the plaintiff’s appeal from the determination by the employment security board of review (board) denying the plaintiff, Crystal M. Shah, unemployment compensation benefits. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff complied with the requirements of Practice Book § 22-4.")
| | | |