The 2019 edition of Alienation of Affection Suits in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides webpage.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

AC41496 - Berthiaume v. State (Petition for new trial; burglary in first degree; summary judgment; jurisdiction; res judicata; motion for new trial; petition for new trial based on newly discovered evidence; "This is an appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the respondent, the state of Connecticut, on a civil petition for a new criminal trial filed by the petitioner, Toby A. Berthiaume. This case presents an issue that our courts have not previously addressed: Whether res judicata precludes a civil petition for a new trial based on a claim of newly discovered evidence when that same claim previously was litigated before the criminal court that had jurisdiction over the criminal matter but nonetheless lacked the authority to adjudicate the claim under our rules of practice. We conclude that, because the criminal court lacked the authority to rule on such a claim, it could not have issued a valid final decision, and, thus, the court's rendering summary judgment on the basis of the preclusive effect of that proceeding was improper. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.")

AC41299 - State v. Watson (Strangulation in second degree; assault in third degree; unlawful restraint in first degree; threatening in second degree; "The defendant, James Henry Watson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61 (a) (1), unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 (a), strangulation in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-64bb (a), and threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 (a) (1). The defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly determined whether the charges of assault in the third degree and unlawful restraint in the first degree were "upon the same incident" as the charge of strangulation in the second degree for the purposes of § 53a-64bb (b); (2) violated § 53a-64bb (b) and his right to be free from double jeopardy when it punished him for assault in the third degree, unlawful restraint in the first degree and strangulation in the second degree; and (3) violated his right to confrontation when it restricted his cross-examination of the victim. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC41130 - Gaddy v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. ("The plaintiff, Charles H. Gaddy, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company and United States Liability Insurance Group. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that his claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We disagree.")

• AC41130 Appendix - Gaddy v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co.

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41155 - Boreen v. Boreen ("The plaintiff, Maya Boreen, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion filed by the defendant, Kevin A. Boreen, to terminate alimony, to determine overpayments, and to set a repayment schedule on the ground that, under the parties' separation agreement, the defendant's alimony obligation terminated upon the court's finding that the plaintiff was 'living with another person.' The plaintiff claims that the court (1) erred in finding that she was 'living with another person' pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86 (b), and (2) improperly concluded that the only remedy available upon a finding that she was 'living with another person' was to terminate the defendant's alimony obligation. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC40014 - A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Saint Paul ("The plaintiff, A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its application to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of the defendants, James Saint Paul and Julie J. Saint Paul, and granting the defendants' application to confirm the arbitration award. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly (1) dismissed its application to vacate as untimely, (2) engaged thereafter in a review of the substance of the plaintiff's application to vacate and concluded that the arbitration award did not manifest an egregious or patently irrational application of the law, and (3) awarded the defendants $2185 in supplemental attorney's fees. We conclude that the court properly dismissed the plaintiff's application to vacate as untimely and did not abuse its discretion in awarding supplemental attorney's fees. In light of our conclusion that the court properly dismissed the plaintiff's application to vacate as untimely, we also conclude that the court erred by reviewing the substance of the application but that such error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC40014 Dissent - A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Saint Paul

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions