Bethany J. Alvord

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

criminal lawguns

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In this case, a commercial tenant (MSO, LLC) sued its landlords for allegedly unlawfully withholding consent to assign the lease, asserting claims including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, and violation of CUTPA. The lease contained an arbitration clause, and after filing answers, counterclaims, and multiple discovery-related motions over more than two years, the defendants moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. The trial court granted the stay, and the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed, concluding that the defendants had not waived their right to arbitration because their litigation conduct did not demonstrate a clear intent to forgo the contractual right and did not prejudice the plaintiff.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved homeowners appealing a cease-and-desist order from the town zoning enforcement officer that prohibited operating a garbage and refuse business, including storing commercial vehicles and equipment, on their residentially zoned property in Westport. The zoning board of appeals upheld the order after a hearing but did not make findings on the owners' claim that the uses were lawful preexisting nonconforming uses protected under state law. The trial court dismissed the owners' appeal and ruled on the merits that no valid nonconforming use existed. The appellate court reversed, holding that the board had failed to address the nonconforming-use claim in the first instance, so the trial court should not have decided the factual and legal issues itself. The matter was remanded with directions to send it back to the board for initial consideration of that claim.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a teacher, Nicholas Frank, appealing the trial court's affirmance of the Department of Children and Families' substantiation of emotional abuse allegations and his placement on the central registry of child abusers under General Statutes § 17a-101k. The plaintiff claimed the statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied to his use of nicknames and cheek-pinching with a student, and that there was insufficient evidence of abuse or causation of harm. The appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied because the teacher lacked prior notice that his conduct was harmful, he had complied with school directives to stop the behavior, and there was no substantial evidence establishing that his actions caused the student's emotional issues.

criminal lawfamily lawcivil rights

In State v. Charles, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of murder, carrying a pistol without a permit, criminal possession of a pistol, and possession of narcotics, based on evidence that he shot and killed an acquaintance during an argument over a cell phone used in drug dealing. On appeal, the defendant claimed the trial court should have instructed the jury sua sponte on self-defense and lesser-included manslaughter offenses. The Appellate Court affirmed the convictions, holding that defense counsel expressly waived instructions on self-defense and manslaughter and implicitly waived challenges to other instructions by failing to object after reviewing the court's draft charge. The court reasoned that such waivers precluded review under Golding or the plain-error doctrine, as the defendant had affirmatively declined the requested charges during the charging conference.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over enforcement of a 2000 stipulated judgment for $30,000 arising from two 1998 promissory notes between the defendant and his in-laws (the plaintiffs), where the defendant had borrowed $21,000 at 10% annual interest but failed to repay by the deadline. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing due to one plaintiff's bankruptcy and for a protective order under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-400a(b), arguing the judgment violated the state's usury prohibition in § 37-4. The trial court denied both motions. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed that the trial court retained subject matter jurisdiction, but reversed in part, holding that the stipulated judgment was usurious as a matter of law because it effectively required payment of interest exceeding the statutory limit on the original loans.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved parents suing a city, its board of education, and officials for failing to maintain safe school buildings with adequate air quality, which allegedly caused or worsened lung disease and allergies in their minor sons, and for denying reimbursement requests for private school placements under federal education laws. After federal claims were dismissed, the remaining state counts alleged intentional spoliation of evidence and fraudulent concealment. The trial court struck those counts on governmental immunity grounds, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the alleged acts were intentional or discretionary without a statutory abrogation of immunity or applicable exceptions for ministerial duties or imminent harm.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an appeal by the defendant husband from a trial court judgment dissolving his twelve-year marriage to the plaintiff wife and dividing assets. The defendant argued that the court improperly included four properties in the marital estate that the parties did not own at the time of dissolution and that it erroneously found he had fraudulently conveyed interests in other properties subject to equitable distribution. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court's factual findings regarding the properties were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, and that the court had properly exercised its broad discretion in considering statutory factors for property division under General Statutes § 46b-81. The court emphasized deference to the trial court's credibility determinations and noted that any errors were not shown to be harmful.

family lawproperty

The plaintiff, a worker who suffered a compensable neck injury in 1998, appealed the workers' compensation review board's affirmance of the commissioner's approval of two Form 36 notices filed by his employer and its insurer to discontinue benefits. The commissioner found, based on medical examinations and testimony, that the plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement by 2003, possessed a light-duty work capacity, and was not credible, while crediting the defendants' neurosurgeon and the plaintiff's former wife regarding evidence of post-injury work activity. The board upheld these findings, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the commissioner's credibility determinations and factual conclusions were supported by the record and that sanctions under General Statutes § 31-300 were properly denied in the absence of undue delay. The court rejected challenges to the denial of the plaintiff's motion to correct, emphasizing that it does not retry facts or reassess witness credibility on appeal.

labor & employment

This case involved a breach of contract action by Electrical Wholesalers, Inc. against V.P. Electric, Inc. and its guarantor for unpaid delivery of copper wire under a purchase and credit agreement that included provisions for attorney's fees. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded the plaintiff damages and subsequently $43,640 in attorney's fees following a hearing. On appeal, the defendants argued they were denied a meaningful hearing due to late submission of fee documentation and that the fees were unreasonable. The appellate court affirmed the award, reasoning that the defendants failed to request a continuance to review the materials and that the trial court properly found the fees reasonable based on the submitted affidavit and timesheet.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Karen Frandy sued the state commissioner of transportation under General Statutes § 13a-144, alleging she was injured when her bicycle hit a hole in a state road. The plaintiff had provided written notice of her claim within the required ninety days, describing the cause as the "defective condition of the pavement," but she did not mention a hole until filing her complaint months later. The trial court denied the commissioner's motion to dismiss the first count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the notice adequate. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the notice failed to describe the specific highway defect as required by the statute, which is a condition precedent to the state's limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Because the defective notice deprived the court of jurisdiction, the action was barred and the case was remanded with direction to grant the motion to dismiss.

proceduretorts & liability

In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate, alleged that a physician’s assistant at a walk-in center misdiagnosed an Achilles tendon tear as gout, leading to worsened injury, and attached a good faith certificate and opinion letter from a board-certified emergency medicine physician. The defendants filed a request to revise the complaint before moving to dismiss under General Statutes § 52-190a, claiming the opinion letter was authored by a non-similar health care provider and lacked sufficient detail. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding no waiver and that the letter was deficient. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that defects in a § 52-190a opinion letter implicate personal jurisdiction, so Practice Book §§ 10-6, 10-7, and 10-32 required the motion to dismiss to be filed in proper sequence; by filing the request to revise first, the defendants waived their right to seek dismissal on that ground.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Keith Eric Andersen's appeal from his convictions for two counts of risk of injury to a child, one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree, and one count of burglary in the second degree, stemming from an incident where he entered a mobile home and inappropriately touched a nine-year-old girl. The defendant challenged the trial court's admission of evidence regarding prior uncharged misconduct, limitations on cross-examination of a witness, and denial of his motions for acquittal. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the prior misconduct evidence was properly admitted for purposes of showing motive and intent after appropriate balancing, that cross-examination was not unduly restricted, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Petraq Bode against his employer after he fell from scaffolding in 2002, sustaining injuries to his spine, shoulder, and other areas. Bode appealed the workers' compensation review board's decision affirming the commissioner's denial of temporary total disability benefits after April 2005 and finding his psychiatric claim non-compensable. The appellate court reversed the denial of temporary total disability benefits, holding that the commissioner improperly factored in Bode's reluctance to undergo shoulder replacement surgery when determining eligibility under General Statutes § 31-307. It affirmed the non-compensability of the psychiatric claim, as it did not arise from the physical injury in a manner qualifying under the statute.

labor & employment

The case concerned Anwar Shakir's appeal from a trial court judgment revoking his probation and imposing a two-year prison sentence after he was arrested on charges of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child while on probation for a prior narcotics offense. The trial court admitted into evidence a videotaped forensic interview of the minor complainant and a medical report showing the complainant had contracted a sexually transmitted disease, then found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had violated the condition of his probation requiring him to obey the law. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admission of the videotape as hearsay, claimed a due process violation of his confrontation rights, and argued that the evidence was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the relaxed evidentiary standards in probation revocation hearings permitted the reliable hearsay evidence, that due process was satisfied, and that the trial court's factual findings and discretionary decision to revoke probation were supported by the record.

criminal lawprocedure