The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.



Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3185

AC39605 - State v. Ruiz-Pacheco (Assault in first degree; attempt to commit murder; conspiracy to commit assault in first degree; "The defendant, Joesenier Ruiz-Pacheco, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the first degree as a principal in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1), two counts of assault in the first degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (1) and 53a-8, one count of attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54, and one count of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (1) and 53a-48. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his conviction of the assault counts violates the double jeopardy clause; (2) the jury instructions on attempted murder were improper; (3) the court's repeated instruction that the jury should consider the lesser included offenses even if the state failed to disprove self-defense on the greater offenses misled the jury; and (4) he was deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial improprieties that affected the critical issues of self-defense and third-party culpability. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40554 - State v. Papantoniou (Felony murder; burglary in first degree; criminal possession of firearm; "The defendant, Nicholas J. Papantoniou, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (1), and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the state (1) violated his rights to be present at trial and to confront the witnesses against him under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution when the prosecutor made a "generic tailoring" argument during closing remarks, and (2) violated his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial by committing prosecutorial improprieties. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3189

SC19619, SC19749 - Angersola v. Radiologic Associates of Middletown, P.C. ("The plaintiffs in this wrongful death action, Susan Angersola and Kathleen Thurz, coexecutors of the estate of the decedent, Patricia Sienkiewicz, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, which granted the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, Radiologic Associates of Middletown, P.C. (Radiologic Associates), Robert Wolek, Middlesex Hospital, Shoreline Surgical Associates, P.C. (Shoreline), and Eileen Tobin, on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to commence their action within the five year repose period of General Statutes § 52-555, this state's wrongful death statute. The plaintiffs first claim that the trial court incorrectly concluded that compliance with that repose provision is a prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction over the action. They further claim that the trial court improperly resolved disputed jurisdictional facts without affording them an opportunity either to engage in limited discovery or to present evidence in connection with their contention that the repose period had been tolled by the continuing course of conduct doctrine or the continuing course of treatment doctrine. Although we reject the plaintiffs' jurisdictional claim, we agree with their second claim insofar as the continuing course of conduct doctrine is concerned. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment.")


Legal Malpractice Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3186

AC40203 - Dubinsky v. Black ("The plaintiff, David Dubinsky, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Kevin M. Black, in this legal malpractice action predicated on the defendant's alleged failure to advise the plaintiff that his acceptance of a plea offer in a criminal proceeding would preclude him from subsequently pursuing an action for malicious prosecution. In rendering summary judgment, the court concluded, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff could not prevail on such an action, as probable cause existed to charge him with the crime of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21. The plaintiff now challenges the propriety of that determination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3187

AC39345 - Varoglu v. Sciarrino ("The plaintiff, Lale Varoglu, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Joseph Sciarrino. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding certain facts and in fashioning its orders pertaining to the distribution of the equity in the marital home by failing to apply the ‘preservation’ criteria in General Statutes § 46b-81 (c). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3188

AC39528 - Dahle v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. (Claim of plaintiff that she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits without a social security offset; “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board erred by: (1) not addressing past incorrect evidence, not finding her new evidence credible, and not addressing a statement from Commissioner Stephen B. Delaney about delayed medical care; and (2) denying her request for financial compensation without a social security offset pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 31- 307 (e). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.”)


Connecticut Law Journal - September 18, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3184

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 12, for September 18, 2018 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 330: Connecticut Reports (Pages 231 - 251)
  • Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 184: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 685 - 877)
  • Volume 184: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases



Landlord/Tenant Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3182

AC40187 - Kaye v. Housman ("In this housing court matter, the defendant, Douglas Housman, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Richelle Kaye, following a hearing in damages. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly held a hearing in damages in view of his operative answer and four special defenses and (2) denied him the right to due process because the court did not adjudicate fully his timely filed answer and four special defenses. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3181

AC39912 - 57 Broad Street Stamford, LLC v. Summer House Owners, LLC (Injunction; action seeking injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' alleged rights under certain easement; "In this easement dispute, the plaintiffs, 57 Broad Street Stamford, LLC, and 59 Broad Street Stamford, LLC, appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court, following a trial to the court, in favor of the defendant, Summer House Owners, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred in concluding that (1) the defendant's construction of a 1500 square foot service access structure within a 6900 square foot easement area did not materially interfere with the plaintiffs' reasonable use and enjoyment of the easement area, and (2) the defendant had the unilateral right to determine the method, timing, and location by which the plaintiffs might use the easement area. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40314 - Jordan v. Biller (Trespass; license and view easement; "The defendants, Jon and Jacqueline Biller, appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs, Russell Jordan and Lorraine Jorsey. The defendants claim that the court improperly determined that a view easement granted to previous owners of their property was not appurtenant to their land. The defendants also claim that the court erred in awarding the plaintiffs damages. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39774 - Rocco v. Shaikh (Quiet title; discharge of invalid lien; "The defendants, Abdulhamid D. Shaikh and Rukaiyabanu A. Shaikh, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Shara Rocco and Patrick Rocco. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain their causes of action because Shara Rocco transferred her interest in the subject property to a trust before the court rendered judgment; (2) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over count two of the plaintiffs' complaint because the statutory grounds on which the plaintiffs relied did not apply to the type of lien at issue in the present case; and (3) we should exercise our supervisory authority over the administration of justice to reverse the judgment because it was procured by fraud, both by the plaintiffs and by the defendants' former attorney. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3180

AC39395 - Keusch v. Keusch ("The defendant, Kenneth Keusch, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Lisa Keusch, and entering related financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) erroneously computed his presumptive minimum child support obligation and (2) abused its discretion by ordering the defendant to pay nonmodifiable unallocated alimony and support. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3178

AC39679 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Eichten ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant Karin C. Eichten appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor in interest to Bank of America, National Association as trustee as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, National Association as trustee for Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT 2007-HY2. The defendant claims that, in rendering summary judgment as to liability in the plaintiff's favor with respect to the plaintiff's foreclosure complaint, the court erred in concluding that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist with respect to her special defenses of equitable estoppel, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, unclean hands, and breach of contract, all of which pertain to the conduct of the plaintiff's loan servicer, Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase), in denying the defendant's application for a loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Additionally, the defendant claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in the plaintiff's favor on her counterclaim sounding in breach of contract. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3176

AC40252 - State v. Walcott (Violation of probation; "The defendant, Ijahmon Walcott, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and imposing a sentence of thirteen years incarceration, execution suspended after four years, with three years of probation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by relying on unproven facts when it revoked his probation and sentenced him during the dispositional phase of the violation of probation proceeding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3177

AC39472 - Farrell v. Johnson & Johnson (Intentional misrepresentation; "The plaintiffs, Mary Beth Farrell and Vincent Farrell, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a jury trial, in favor of the defendants Brian J. Hines, M.D. , and Urogynecology and Pelvic Surgery, LLC (Urogynecology). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court (1) abused its discretion by allowing the defendants to refer during trial to prior defendants, the claims against whom had been withdrawn; (2) abused its discretion by excluding from evidence as hearsay two journal articles; (3) improperly directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' claim of innocent misrepresentation; and (4) improperly failed to instruct the jury on the concept of misrepresentation due to Hines' lack of sufficient knowledge. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3179

AC38861 - Marshall v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erroneously determined that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by (1) having an actual conflict of interest as a result of his prior representation of a witness in an unrelated criminal case; (2) failing to object to the trial court’s exclusion of the petitioner from participation in an in-chambers conference; (3) failing to move to suppress one witness’ identification of him from a photographic array; and (4) failing to challenge the consolidation of his two criminal cases for trial. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")



Workers' Compensation Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3174

SC19990, SC19991- Filosi v. Electric Boat Corp. (“In this workers’ compensation appeal, we consider whether an employer is collaterally estopped from challenging an employee’s eligibility for benefits under the Connecticut Workers’ CompensationAct (state act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., because of an earlier decision by a United States Department of Labor administrative law judge (administrative law judge) awarding benefits to that employee under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Longshore Act), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. (2012). .. On appeal, the defendant claims that the board improperly determined that the administrative law judge’s decision to award benefits under the Longshore Act collaterally estopped it from challenging compensability because the federal forum employs a lower standard of causation than the substantial factor standard required by the state act and, therefore, that it should be allowed to litigate its claims under the higher state standard. Guided largely by our decision in Birnie v. Electric Boat Corp., 288 Conn. 392, 953 A.2d 28 (2008), we conclude that the board properly determined that the defendant is collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of causation under the state act because the record of the Longshore Act proceedings indicates that the administrative law judge employed the substantial factor standard that governs in the state forum. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the board.”)



Connecticut Law Journal - September 11, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3172

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 11, for September 11, 2018 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 330: Connecticut Reports (Pages 138 - 230)
  • Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 184: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 565 - 685)
  • Volume 184: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies