This case was a residential mortgage foreclosure action in which Deutsche Bank, as trustee and holder of a note and mortgage originally issued to the defendant Thomas Shivers, sued after Shivers defaulted on payments and the debt was accelerated. The defendant filed multiple motions to dismiss challenging the plaintiff's standing due to the timing of the mortgage assignment and the validity of note endorsements, and later opposed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, but never filed an answer or special defenses. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss and granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact, then entered a judgment of strict foreclosure; the appellate court affirmed, adopting the trial court's reasoning that the plaintiff had established its prima facie case by producing the note and the defendant had failed to submit any evidence rebutting it. The core legal issue was whether summary judgment was properly granted in a foreclosure proceeding when the defendant raised standing and evidentiary challenges without counter-evidence.
This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Vidal Gamez-Reyes against his employer Donald Biagi for injuries sustained in a fall from a ladder while pruning a tree on the job. The defendant contested the claim by arguing lack of employment status and that the commissioner lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not first proven he was not intoxicated under General Statutes § 31-275(1)(C). The court affirmed the commissioner's award of benefits, holding that intoxication is an affirmative defense that the employer must prove under § 31-284(a) rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite for the claimant, consistent with nearly a century of precedent. The matter was remanded solely for further articulation regarding the award of interpreter's fees.
In this case, plaintiff Scott Warner sought to foreclose a judgment lien on defendant Dianna Brochendorff's property in Salisbury, stemming from a 2007 default judgment in an underlying trespass action where the defendant was held liable for $50,000 in damages for cutting trees on the plaintiff's land. The trial court allowed the defendant to raise special defenses alleging fraud and lack of notice to collaterally attack the underlying judgment, reduced the damages amount, and entered a foreclosure by sale. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the foreclosure judgment, holding that the trial court improperly permitted a collateral attack on the prior judgment. The core reasoning was that the defendant had received notice via her pro se appearance, was properly defaulted for failure to plead, and failed to pursue direct remedies like appeal or a motion to open within four months; the foreclosure proceeding could not revisit the merits of the damages award absent proven fraud in obtaining the judgment.
The case involved a claim for unemployment compensation benefits by Donna Lantieri, who was discharged from her job after failing to submit required medical forms to support a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The employment security board of review denied benefits on the ground that her failure to return a second medical form constituted wilful misconduct, but the trial court reversed that decision after making its own additional factual findings. The appellate court held that the trial court improperly found and relied on facts beyond those certified by the board, and therefore reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded with direction to affirm the board's denial of benefits, as the board's conclusion was supported by the certified record.
The case involved the defendant Rinaldo Fleury, who was convicted after a jury trial of illegally selling a pistol or revolver and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit. The defendant appealed, arguing that severing the gun charges from related narcotics charges violated his right to an impartial jury because the jury heard the original charges during voir dire, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the severance did not prejudice the defendant and that the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and recordings from an undercover operation, was sufficient to prove the elements of the crimes.
This case concerns a dispute over a seven-year commercial lease for land and a building in Newington, Connecticut, used by the defendant tenant for machine shop operations, with nominal rent and an early termination clause tied to sale of the property. Following an electrical fire and subsequent repairs that temporarily reduced power capacity, the tenant experienced business interruptions and later relocated; the landlord sued for breach of the lease while the tenant countersued for damages from the power issues. The trial court found the tenant breached the lease but awarded damages to both sides, including on the counterclaim. On appeal and cross-appeal, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in full, upholding the breach determination, the award of attorney's fees and costs to the landlord, and the calculation of damages on the counterclaim based on the lease terms, the landlord's voluntary repair efforts, and the evidence presented.