AC38165 - Bauer v. Bauer ("The plaintiff, Mary L. Bauer, appeals from the postjudgment rulings of the trial court denying her motion for contempt and granting the motion of the defendant, Jeffrey W. Bauer, for modification of his alimony obligation. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the defendant’s failure to pay court-ordered alimony was not wilful, (2) failed to conclude that the defendant’s conduct was culpable when considering his motion for modification, and (3) failed to admit certain evidence that she offered relative to the criteria set forth in General Statutes § 46b-82. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38217, AC38365 - American First Federal, Inc. v. Gordon ("These consolidated appeals arise from an action brought by the plaintiff, American First Federal, Inc., against the defendants, Sheldon M. Gordon and Gordon Group Investments, LLC (GGI), to collect on a commercial loan. Following a trial to the court, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. In AC 38217, the defendants claim that the court erred by concluding that the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest assigned its rights under the loan to the plaintiff. In AC 38365, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in its determination of attorney’s fees and calculation of postjudgment interest. We disagree with the parties’ claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC19712 - State v. Reyes ("The defendant, Angelo Reyes, appeals from the judgments of conviction, following a jury trial, of two counts of arson in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-112 (a) (2), two counts of conspiracy to commit criminal mischief in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-115 (a) (1) and 53a-48 (a), and one count of conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-101 (a) (1) and 53a-48 (a). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) instructed the jury on reasonable doubt, (2) failed to bar the assistant state's attorney (prosecutor), during voir dire, from informing certain prospective jurors that reasonable doubt is something less than 100 percent certainty, and (3) limited the defendant's right to cross-examine key state witnesses. We conclude that the defendant implicitly waived his unpreserved claim of instructional impropriety under State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), and we reject the defendant's other claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC38027 - State v. Heath ("The state appeals and the defendant, Jamar Heath, cross appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting in part the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. In its appeal, the state, in reliance on State v. Victor O., 320 Conn. 239, 128 A.3d 940 (2016) (Victor O. II), and State v. Jason B., 320 Conn. 259, 128 A.3d 937 (2016), claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 53a-70 (b) (3) required the court to sentence the defendant to a period of special parole for his conviction of sexual assault in the first degree. In his cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly resentenced him to a total effective sentence that exceeds his original sentence. We agree with the state and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38025 - State v. Ruiz ("The state appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting in part the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. In reliance on State v. Victor O., 320 Conn. 239, 128 A.3d 940 (2016) (Victor O. II), and State v. Jason B., 320 Conn. 259, 128 A.3d 937 (2016), the state claims that the trial court improperly held that the defendant's original sentence was illegal because it did not include a period of special parole. The defendant, Jesus Ruiz, cross appeals from the judgment of the trial court. The defendant claims that the court resentenced him to a total effective sentence that improperly exceeds his original sentence. We conclude that the defendant's original sentence was not illegal for lack of a period of special parole. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC38208, AC38093, AC38094, AC38095, AC38097 - Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc and AC38098, AC38099 - Girolametti v. VP Buildings, Inc. (Negligence; "These seven appeals arise from disputes regarding the construction of an expansion to a Party Depot Store (store) located in Danbury. The owners of the store, the plaintiffs John Girolametti, Jr., and Cindy Girolametti, brought actions against the general contractor, Rizzo Corporation (Rizzo), and seven subcontractors and sub-subcontractors who worked on the construction project, on various claims relating to the quality of the work provided. All eight defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The owners of the store appeal from the court's judgment granting Rizzo's motion for summary judgment. The subcontractors and sub-subcontractors appeal from the court's judgment denying all of their motions for summary judgment. Although each appeal involves some unique facts and implicates the interests of parties specific to that appeal, the factual backdrop to these appeals is sufficiently common to enable us, on review, to set forth the facts that underlie them in one background statement. Additional facts will be noted, as appropriate, in our discussion of each appeal. ")

AC38263 - Kruger v. Grauer (Defamation; "The defendant, Avery Grauer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion for summary judgment. The issue in this appeal is whether the court properly concluded that the defendant was not entitled to absolute immunity on the basis of the litigation privilege for reports of child sexual abuse that she made to the Department of Children and Families (department). We conclude that, even if we were to assume, without deciding, that individuals who make such reports were entitled to absolute immunity at common law, the legislature has abrogated that common-law immunity by affording only qualified immunity to those who report abuse or neglect pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-101e (b). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC38214 - Haughey v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because his mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release violated the requirement of individualized, proportionate sentencing under the eighth amendment to the United States constitution as articulated in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). The petitioner also claims, for the first time on appeal, that his mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release violates the Connecticut constitution. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions