Barry R. Schaller

The case involved a dispute over whether Edith Baron had the mental capacity to execute a valid will in July 2002, with two of her children challenging a will that favored their sister Jeanne Baron over an earlier will that divided assets more evenly. The trial court disallowed the later will after finding the decedent incompetent based on a neuropsychologist's evaluation of her ability to handle complex financial matters. The Appellate Court of Connecticut reversed the trial court's judgments, concluding that an incorrect legal standard had been applied to the question of testamentary capacity. Under Connecticut law, the proper test is whether the testator had sufficient mind and memory to understand the business of executing a will at the time it was signed, not the higher threshold of managing complex financial decisions.

family lawproperty

The case involved a claim of malicious prosecution brought by Gladys Kronovitter against a municipal police officer and a town animal control officer after her arrest for animal cruelty, which stemmed from the poor condition of numerous dogs found on her property; the criminal charges were later nolled. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court's jury instructions on probable cause were proper when limited to the animal cruelty statute while allowing consideration of related statutory violations, that certain expert testimony was admissible, and that evidence from a related in rem proceeding was properly admitted for a limited purpose.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved defendant Bipin Shah, who was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of attempt to commit risk of injury to a child and one count of attempt to entice a minor. The charges arose from his repeated online chats with an undercover officer posing as a fourteen-year-old girl, in which he discussed sexual acts, arranged motel meetings, and drove to the agreed location with items like a camera and microphone. Shah appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he took a substantial step toward the crimes or possessed the required intent, and that chat transcripts were improperly admitted. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant's persistent communications, travel to the meeting site, and preparations provided ample evidence of both a substantial step and criminal intent, and that the transcripts were admissible.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim arising from the death of a newborn during delivery at a hospital, where the mother, as administratrix, initially sued the obstetrician, nurse midwife, their employer Shoreline Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., the hospital, and later the defendants who purchased Shoreline's assets. After settling with Shoreline and its employees via covenants not to sue and withdrawing those claims, the plaintiff pursued successor liability against the defendants under theories like continuity of enterprise. The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the covenants not to sue, which discharged Shoreline from all related claims, also precluded successor liability against the purchasers. The court reasoned that successor liability is coterminous with and derives solely from the predecessor's liability, so protecting Shoreline necessarily protects the successors standing in its shoes, and the broad language of the agreements confirmed a full discharge of liability.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a loss of consortium claim brought by Charlotte Stacey against a gynecologic oncologist and her practice after the doctor's alleged malpractice injured Stacey's same-sex domestic partner, Margaret Mueller, between 2001 and 2004. Stacey and Mueller had lived together since 1985 and entered a civil union in 2005, but the third amended complaint did not allege that they would have married or formalized their relationship before the malpractice occurred. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to strike the consortium counts, ruling that no legal marriage or civil union existed at the time of the injury, and the appellate court affirmed because loss of spousal consortium requires a legally recognized relationship at the time of the wrong and the complaint lacked the necessary allegations to support an exception.

civil rightsfamily lawtorts & liability

In State v. Dillard, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and threatening in the second degree, stemming from an incident in which he stabbed his former romantic partner to death, threatened others, and stole a vehicle. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to inquire into a possible conflict of interest with his counsel after an alleged assault, by admitting evidence of his prior acts of misconduct, and by denying his motion to sever certain charges. The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment of conviction. It reasoned that the defendant had affirmatively waived any conflict by stating he wished to continue with the same counsel, that the prior misconduct evidence was properly admitted to show intent, motive, and absence of accident, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the joinder of charges.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved petitioner Alison Barlow's appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he claimed that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the trial court's jury instructions on the definition of intent and the elements of the charged offenses (attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, assault, and firearm alteration) following his 1998 convictions for a 1997 shooting incident. The habeas court denied the petition after finding no deficient performance or prejudice, and then denied certification to appeal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, applying the two-pronged Simms test and concluding that the petitioner failed to show the habeas court's denial constituted an abuse of discretion, as the jury instructions as a whole did not mislead the jury despite including inapplicable general-intent language. The court further held that precedent like State v. DeBarros was distinguishable because the improper references here were not so numerous or misleading as to require reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Rhoderick Boyd's appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he claimed ineffective assistance of his trial counsel in his underlying criminal case resulting in convictions for sexual assault in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and assault in the third degree. The habeas court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that counsel's failure to object to portions of the state's psychiatric expert testimony and failure to independently investigate or photograph the crime scene did not constitute deficient performance. The court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard and determined that the petitioner had not overcome the presumption that counsel's actions reflected reasonable trial strategy.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners in which the plaintiff DPF Financial Holdings, LLC, sued defendant Amy Lyons for trespass after her animals, structures, debris, and waste encroached on the plaintiff's lots. The trial court issued a temporary injunction barring further trespasses and later held the defendant in contempt for violating the order, awarding the plaintiff $5000 in compensatory damages and $1200 in attorney's fees. On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the contempt finding but reversed the monetary awards, concluding that the record contained no evidence to support either the amount of damages or the reasonableness of the attorney's fees. The court remanded for a hearing limited to determining appropriate damages and fees. The decision rested on the requirement that contempt sanctions, including fines and fees under General Statutes § 52-256b, must be supported by an adequate factual basis in the record.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over attorney's fees in a breach of contract action between Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. and Whitewing Environmental Corp. as plaintiffs and Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC as defendant, concerning three contracts for the sale of an oil recycling business. After the defendant prevailed on counterclaims for breaches of two contracts containing attorney's fees provisions, it moved for fees but provided only a general itemized list without separating work by contract. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that itemization was required to identify fees tied to the specific contracts allowing recovery, and also denied appellate fees from a prior appeal. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the itemization or in denying the fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the appeal of Ricardo Mack's convictions for murder and two counts of assault in the first degree with a firearm following a shooting at a restaurant. The defendant challenged the admission of handwritten notes found in another inmate's cell, which the state presented as evidence of his consciousness of guilt by attempting to solicit favorable testimony. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the notes were relevant and that their admission did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who tripped and fell over a three-inch raised sidewalk slab in the defendant town, sustaining injuries, and sued the town under the municipal highway defect statute, General Statutes § 13a-149. Following a jury trial, the plaintiff received a damages award of $173,365.25, which the trial court upheld by denying the town's motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the verdict. The town appealed, challenging the admission of expert engineering testimony on the cause of the sidewalk defect and a log of telephone calls received by the town, as well as the sufficiency of evidence on the town's constructive knowledge of the defect and whether the defect was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the record contained sufficient support for the jury's findings on the statutory elements.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this habeas corpus case, the petitioner, Samuel Davis, who was convicted of felony murder and related charges arising from a 1997 shooting during an attempted robbery, appealed the denial of his petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The petitioner argued that his counsel failed to properly present and argue motions to suppress his hospital statements made while under medication after surgery and two witness identifications conducted at the hospital. The court held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification to appeal, concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under the Strickland standard because there was no reasonable probability that the suppression motions would have succeeded or altered the trial outcome even if pursued differently. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a divorce action in which the plaintiff appealed the trial court's financial orders that denied her any alimony or share of marital assets while assigning her responsibility for most of the debt. The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award time-limited or rehabilitative alimony, given the plaintiff's limited earnings, her plan to pursue a nursing certificate to raise her income, and her inability to meet expenses even with temporary support. It therefore reversed the judgment in part and remanded the case for a new trial limited to the financial orders.

family law

The case involved a housing cooperative's summary process action to evict Larry K. Johnson from premises he occupied without approval under the lease or HUD regulations, after his mother's occupancy agreement. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff and ordered eviction, finding Johnson was not a tenant entitled to a pretermination notice. On appeal, the defendant argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to simultaneous service of pretermination and quit notices, plus untimely return of the complaint under § 47a-23a. The appellate court affirmed, holding that as a non-tenant with no legal right to occupy, Johnson was not entitled to the § 47a-15 cure period, the notices were valid, and jurisdiction was proper. The opinion emphasizes strict construction of summary process statutes while noting no leasehold interest is required for dispossession of unauthorized occupants.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Skelly, the defendant, an inmate at a correctional facility, was convicted after a bench trial of assault in the third degree for biting another inmate's ear during a fight in the day room. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly rejected his self-defense claim by finding he was the initial aggressor under General Statutes § 53a-19. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence, including a video recording and witness statements, supported the trial court's factual finding that the defendant initiated the physical confrontation after a verbal dispute and that the state had disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that it was not clearly erroneous for the trial judge to discredit the defendant's account that the victim had punched him first.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Corey Pettigrew, who was convicted after a jury trial of multiple counts of conspiracy and attempt to distribute narcotics by a non-drug-dependent person, including charges for distribution within 1500 feet of a public housing project, arising from two separate incidents in 2006 and 2007. On appeal, the defendant challenged the joinder of the two cases for trial, the constitutionality of the statute as applied, the sufficiency of evidence on intent to distribute near the housing project, and multiple conspiracy sentences as violating double jeopardy. The court affirmed the judgments of conviction and rejected the first three claims but agreed with the double jeopardy argument, reversing the sentence and remanding for resentencing while affirming in all other respects.

criminal law

In this postjudgment marital dissolution action, the administrator of the deceased defendant's estate appealed the trial court's grant of the plaintiff's motion for sanctions and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the administrator's claim of improper substitution and lack of subject matter jurisdiction was barred by collateral estoppel due to prior unsuccessful litigation of the same issues. The court also upheld the sanctions, determining that the administrator's filing of multiple motions that were withdrawn or resolved against him constituted egregious litigation misconduct warranting an award of fees under the relevant family relations statutes.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a construction company that performed water damage remediation and remodeling work on a homeowner's property pursuant to an unsigned contract and sought to foreclose a mechanic's lien for the unpaid balance of $36,000 after the homeowner stopped payments. The trial court found that a contract existed, valued the services and materials at the claimed amount, rejected the homeowner's Home Improvement Act defense due to bad faith, and entered judgment of strict foreclosure. On appeal, the defendant challenged the choice of strict foreclosure over a sale, the contract finding, the valuation, the Act defense ruling, and the effect of a release on her defenses. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that strict foreclosure was proper absent a motion for sale, that the trial court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and that the release issue was inadequately briefed.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between a homeowner and a contractor over a home renovation project, in which the plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and a CUTPA violation. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff on liability and damages on September 24, 2008, after the last arguments on those issues on May 27, 2008, and later awarded attorney's fees and costs but not punitive damages. On appeal, the defendant claimed the judgments violated the 120-day deadline under General Statutes § 51-183b, along with other evidentiary and substantive errors. The court concluded that the completion date of trial for purposes of the statute was the date of the final arguments on liability and damages, so the timing rule was satisfied, affirmed the judgment except for reversing the award of expert witness fees under CUTPA, and rejected the remaining claims.

procedurebusiness & regulatory