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 Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3300

AC40581 - State v. Young (Operating motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs; evading responsibility in operation of motor vehicle; operating motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs as second offender; "The defendant, Mark Young, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered after his guilty pleas to charges of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) and evading responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 14-224 (b) (3), and to previously having been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of § 14-227a (g). The defendant claims that: (1) the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw and vacate guilty pleas pursuant to Practice Book §§ 39-26 and 39-27 because there was no factual basis for his plea of guilty to § 14-227a (a) and (g) for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence as a second offender; and (2) the court imposed an illegal sentence upon him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence as a second offender that exceeded the statutory maximum for that offense, and did so in an illegal manner because it relied on materially inaccurate information concerning his criminal record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw, but conclude that the sentence imposed on him exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence as a second offender. Accordingly, we vacate the defendant's sentences on all charges and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing under the terms of the original plea agreement, in accordance with the law.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3299

AC40229 - Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tarzia ("This is the third appeal in this foreclosure action to reach this court in the nearly ten years this matter has been litigated. The named defendant Joseph S. Tarzia appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to open and vacate the court's judgment of strict foreclosure. Although the self-represented defendant's appellate brief is not a model of clarity, we construe his claims to be that the court (1) erred by denying his motion to open and vacate based on new evidence of fraud (2) erred by concluding that the plaintiff possessed the note when it filed this foreclosure action and (3) violated his right to due process by failing to view his case in its entirety as mandated by the mosaic rule. We disagree.")


Connecticut Law Journal - December 25, 2018

   by Booth, George

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3301

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 26, for December 25, 2018 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents
Volume 330: Orders (Pages 954 - 956)
Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 186: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 743 - 770)
Volume 186: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 906)
Volume 186: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices
Supreme Court Pending Cases
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
Notice Publishing Deadlines



Law Library Hours Update - December 21st - January 4th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3296

Friday, December 21st

  • New Britain Law Library will open at 11:30 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library will close at noon.

Monday, December 24th

  • Bridgeport, New Britain, and Torrington Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library will be open until 2:00 p.m.
  • All other Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries will be closed.

Tuesday, December 25th

  • All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries will be closed in observance of Christmas Day.

Wednesday, December 26th

  • Bridgeport Law Library will be closed.
  • New London Law Library will be closed.
  • Putnam Law Library will be open from 10:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
  • Stamford Law Library will close at 3:00 p.m.

Thursday, December 27th

  • Danbury Law Library will close at 1:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library will close at 4:00 p.m.
  • New London Law Library will be closed.
  • Putnam Law Library will be closed.
  • Stamford Law Library will close at 3:00 p.m.


Friday, December 28th

  • New London Law Library will be closed.
  • Torrington Law Library will be closed.
  • Stamford Law Library will be closed.

Monday, December 31st

  • Bridgeport Law Library will be closed.
  • Danbury Law Library will be closed.
  • Hartford Law Library will be closed.
  • New London Law Library will be closed.
  • Putnam Law Library will be closed.
  • Torrington Law Library will be closed.

Wednesday, January 2nd

  • Bridgeport Law Library will be closing at 2:30 p.m.




Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3295

AC40627 - Federal National Mortgage Assn. v. Buhl ("The present appeal in this summary process action stems from the foreclosure of real property located at 12 Casner Road in East Haddam. The self-represented defendants, Paul Buhl and Luce Buhl, appeal from the judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Federal National Mortgage Association. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court (1) improperly determined that they did not commence an action pursuant to General Statutes § 47-36aa (a), (2) improperly determined that the deed to the subject property was valid despite notarial defects, (3) abused its discretion by allowing the plaintiff's counsel to give unsworn testimony, and (4) abused its discretion by rendering a default judgment against Luce Buhl for failure to appear at trial. We disagree and 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=3297

AC41405 - Edward M. v. Commissioner of Correction ("This appeal arises out of the habeas court’s granting of the second petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Edward M. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court, claiming that the court improperly (1) used the petitioner’s hospital records for a purpose other than for which they were admitted and (2) concluded that the petitioner’s prior habeas counsel was ineffective and caused prejudice to the petitioner by failing to allege the ineffective assistance of the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel, who failed to present evidence regarding the petitioner’s circumcised penis. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3294

AC41742 - In re Gabriella C.-G., et al: (Termination of parental rights; “She claims on appeal that the court erred in (1) violating her constitutional rights by holding her to ‘unlawful, vague, high standards of care, compared to all the other parties . . . associated with the care and keeping’ of the five children, (2) denying ‘the right to a comparison of the foster parents . . . and [the Department of Children and Families (the department)] provided level of care that she was held to,’ including not allowing an injury report from the Office of the Child Advocate as to Dallas, (3) finding that the department made ‘reasonable efforts’ to reunify her with any of her five children, (4) making the statement, ‘this family can’t and won’t benefit from reunification’… and (5) stating that ‘it’s in the best interest’… of the five minor children for her to lose her parental rights.…Having reviewed the findings of the court as set forth in its thoughtful and thorough decision, we conclude that under the applicable standards of review, they are sufficiently supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous. The judgments are affirmed.”)



Connecticut Law Journal - December 18, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3292

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 25, for December 18, 2018 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 330: Orders (Pages 953 - 953)
  • Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 186: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 610 - 742)
  • Volume 186: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 904)
  • Volume 186: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
  • Notice Publishing Deadlines


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3291

AC41648 - U.S. Equities Corp. v. Ceraldi ("The defendant, Peggy Ceraldi, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion for clarification filed by the plaintiff, U.S. Equities Corp., regarding the postjudgment interest rate to be applied to the judgment rendered against the defendant in the underlying debt collection action. The defendant claims that the court's clarification actually was an improper substantive modification of the judgment. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment setting the rate of postjudgment interest.")

AC40173, AC40434 - Konover v. Kolakowski ("This action arises from the indemnification provisions in a stock purchase and sales agreement (agreement) between the plaintiff Michael Konover and the defendants Michael Kolakowski, Simon Etzel, and Eric Brown (the buyers) for the buyers’ purchase of Konover's stock in the KBE Building Corporation (KBE). The plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's rendering of partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erroneously ruled that the parties' agreement does not obligate the defendants to reimburse Konover for legal fees incurred while litigating certain legal actions that had been pending against Konover and KBE at the time the agreement was executed. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claim that, even if the language of the agreement does not require the defendants to reimburse Konover for any legal fees, the trial court should have considered admissions in the defendants' pleadings and other extrinsic evidence, which evinced an understanding between the parties that the defendants were responsible for paying their own legal fees incurred in conjunction with the referenced litigation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3290

AC39231 - Jenkins v. Jenkins ("The plaintiff, Cheryl A. Jenkins, appeals from the trial court's judgment denying her motion to vacate an arbitration award in a dissolution of marriage matter which, in addition to dissolving the marriage, included orders of alimony and a division of the parties' assets and other financial orders. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred when it refused to vacate the arbitrator's award because the arbitrator (1) precluded the testimony of an expert witness in violation of General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (3), and (2) treated one party more favorably than the other in violation of General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (2). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36210 - Reinke v. Singer ("This appeal returns to the Appellate Court on remand from our Supreme Court for resolution of the claims raised by the plaintiff, Gail Reinke. Reinke v. Sing, 328 Conn. 376, 179 A.3d 769 (2018). The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court after it reissued several financial orders that were part of an original judgment that dissolved her marriage to the defendant, Walter Sing. The plaintiff claims that the court erred (1) by failing to find that the defendant committed fraud when he submitted inaccurate financial affidavits to the court at the time of the original dissolution judgment, (2) with respect to its alimony award, (3) with respect to its distribution of property, (4) with respect to its award of attorney's fees, and (5) by failing in its financial orders to promote full and frank disclosure in financial affidavits and by failing to address adequately the defendant's omission of substantial income and assets from the financial affidavits that he filed at the time of the original dissolution judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3287

AC40217 - State v. Miller (Motion to correct illegal sentence; "The defendant, Omar Miller, appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant claims on appeal that the court improperly denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence without first conducting a hearing on the merits of the motion. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")

AC39187 - State v. Mota-Royaceli (Manslaughter in first degree; "The defendant, Jayson Mota-Royaceli, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered after a trial to the jury, on the charge of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) limited his voir dire of the venire panel and (2) gave the jury a Chip Smith instruction at an impermissibly coercive time. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3288

AC40556 - Gaughan v. Higgins (Quiet title; trespass; "This quiet title action concerns a triangular strip of land between the parties' properties. The defendant, Peter J. Higgins, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiffs, Peter P. Gaughan and Jacqueline McGann. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) credited the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness, (2) found facts not supported by the record, (3) found that the defendant trespassed on the plaintiffs' property, and (4) awarded the plaintiffs the fees of their expert witness as an element of the bill of costs. The plaintiffs cross appeal, claiming that the court improperly (1) denied their request for punitive damages and (2) determined that the defendant did not slander the plaintiffs' title. We reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the defendant's fourth claim and affirm the judgment in all other respects.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3289

AC40044 - Ravalese v. Lertora (Defamation; "The plaintiff, David Ravalese, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Joanne M. Lertora, on his complaint sounding in defamation. On appeal, the plaintiff sets forth two main claims: (1) the court improperly held that a report authored by the defendant was made for the purpose of litigation and, therefore, that the plaintiff's action for defamation was barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity; and (2) the court improperly held that the statute of limitations barred the action. We affirm the judgment of the court.")