Joseph P. Flynn

The case involved Dario Bertotti appealing the denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not properly advising him on an eight-year plea offer after his conviction for robbery and larceny. The habeas court denied the petition after finding the attorney's testimony credible and concluding there was no deficient performance or prejudice. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, determining that the petitioner failed to show the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal, largely deferring to the lower court's credibility assessments and finding no constitutional violation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a self-represented defendant convicted after a court trial of two counts of the infraction of creating a public disturbance under General Statutes § 53a-181a (a)(1) and (2), arising from an October 2009 incident at a public kiosk in Middletown where he posted flyers, confronted a Chamber of Commerce member removing them, raised a hammer stapler threateningly, made physical contact with her arm, and engaged in loud and agitated behavior witnessed by police. The defendant appealed on multiple grounds, including facial vagueness of the statute, improper amendment of the information, failure to produce a 911 recording, denial of a jury trial, denial of compulsory process for witnesses, and insufficient evidence of the required mental state. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction, holding that the statute was not facially vague under precedent from State v. Indrisano, that procedural and evidentiary claims lacked merit, and that the record contained ample evidence to support the findings of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

This case involved buyers of commercial real estate in Danbury who sued the sellers after learning that an addition to the warehouse lacked a certificate of occupancy, causing a subsequent sale to fall through; the buyers alleged breach of contract, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and a CUTPA violation based on contract language about compliance with local regulations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the sellers, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the sales contract's terms merged into and were superseded by the deed upon closing, the property was sold "as is" with no surviving representations the buyers could rely on, and CUTPA did not apply because the sellers were not engaged in the trade or commerce of selling real estate but were instead disposing of property incidental to their other activities.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved the termination of the parental rights of the respondent mother as to her two minor children, Gianni C. and Jada G., after the children were adjudicated uncared for and committed to the custody of the commissioner of children and families. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation under General Statutes § 17a-112 (j)(3)(B)(i), in light of her conviction and incarceration for first-degree robbery along with other factors affecting her ability to assume a responsible position in the children's lives, and that termination was in the children's best interests. The mother appealed, claiming the evidence did not support the rehabilitation finding. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the trial court's determinations were not clearly erroneous given the record, witness testimony, and credibility assessments.

family law

In State v. Bryan, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of assault in the first degree and attempt to commit assault in the first degree, stemming from an incident in which he stabbed his girlfriend's former boyfriend in a school parking lot. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the defendant to six years in prison, but refused his request for a jury instruction on the defense of others under General Statutes § 53a-19. On appeal, the court held that the refusal was error because the evidence, including prior threats and violence by the complainant against the girlfriend and the events on the day in question, provided a basis from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant acted to defend her, even if the defenses were inconsistent. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

criminal law

The case involved Donesque Charles Reynolds, who was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit identity theft and larceny, and then pleaded guilty to being a persistent serious felony offender under Connecticut law, leading to enhanced penalties. On appeal, Reynolds claimed violations of his right to a jury trial regarding the public interest determination for sentencing, improper denial of his motion to withdraw the guilty plea, and the trial court's failure to make the required statutory finding on whether extended incarceration was in the public interest. The court held that his guilty plea validly waived his right to a jury determination on both guilt and the public interest issue, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plea withdrawal. However, the appellate court found that the trial court had not made the necessary public interest finding as required by statute, leading to the vacation of the sentence enhancement and a remand for the trial court to make that determination as the fact finder.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Richard Pommer's appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery, and witness tampering. Pommer claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call a potential witness and that the habeas court erred by allowing a witness to selectively invoke the Fifth Amendment on certain questions while answering others. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification because the petitioner failed to show debatable issues warranting further review. The court reasoned that counsel's performance was not deficient given the petitioner's shifting accounts of events, which forced last-minute strategy changes, and that there was no prejudice because the habeas court found the convictions would have stood even without the challenged testimony, a finding not clearly erroneous on the record. The court also noted that the petitioner had not moved to strike the witness's testimony or seek contempt sanctions for the Fifth Amendment invocations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a homeowner who buried her husband on her residential property in Chester and sought a declaratory judgment that private burials were permitted under local zoning rules, after the town's zoning compliance officer issued (and later withdrew) a cease-and-desist order citing a violation of the regulations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the town and its planning and zoning commission. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative remedies by pursuing an appeal to the zoning board of appeals; the dispute concerned the officer's interpretation of the regulations rather than their validity, and no exception to the exhaustion requirement applied.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a Connecticut resident electrician who received and accepted a job offer by telephone from a New York-based employer for temporary work repairing hurricane damage in Florida. After suffering a knee injury in Florida, the plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in Connecticut, but the commissioner found the employment contract was formed during the call yet concluded there was no substantial relationship to the state because wages and work began only after the plaintiff arrived in New York. The workers’ compensation review board affirmed the commissioner’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that formation of the employment contract in Connecticut created a significant relationship to the state under the test from Burse v. American International Airways, Inc., so Connecticut law could apply to the benefits claim.

labor & employment

This case involves a foreclosure action brought by LaSalle Bank against defendant Paul Bialobrzeski over a mortgage on property in Middlebury, Connecticut. The defendant, appearing pro se, moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing because it did not own the note or mortgage when the complaint was filed in 2007, as the assignment occurred later. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, granted summary judgment on liability, and entered a judgment of strict foreclosure. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the record contained no factual finding regarding when the plaintiff acquired the note, which prevented review of the standing and subject matter jurisdiction issues. The court noted that jurisdiction may be challenged at any time and that the plaintiff’s possession of the note at commencement must be established for the action to proceed.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a foreclosure action brought by LaSalle Bank against pro se defendant Paul Bialobrzeski to foreclose a mortgage on property at 121 Colonial Avenue in Middlebury after the defendant defaulted on a note originally given to Long Beach Mortgage Corporation. The defendant moved to dismiss, claiming the plaintiff lacked standing because it did not own the note or mortgage when the action was filed in 2007, as the mortgage assignment occurred later. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, granted summary judgment on liability, and entered a judgment of strict foreclosure. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the record contained no factual finding on when the plaintiff acquired the note, which prevented review of the subject matter jurisdiction issue based on standing.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a reservation agreement between a land company and a buyer for a residential building lot in a common interest community, where the buyer alleged an oral modification to the agreement's deadlines and the seller later refused to proceed with the sale. The plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and violations of the Common Interest Ownership Act. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff on the breach of contract and CUTPA counts. On appeal, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part, upholding the finding of a valid oral modification supported by promissory estoppel that barred the statute of frauds defense and affirming the breach of contract judgment while addressing the remaining claims and damages.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a habeas corpus petition by George Figueroa III challenging his convictions for murder under General Statutes § 53a-54a and carrying a pistol without a permit under § 29-35. He argued that amendments to these statutes were unconstitutional because the published public acts omitted the enactment clause required by the Connecticut Constitution, rendering the charging documents invalid and violating his due process and other constitutional rights. The habeas court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim, and the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the absence of the clause in published versions did not invalidate the statutes. The court reasoned that the original engrossed bills on file contained the clause, the prefaces to the public acts explained its omission for conservation reasons and certified the accuracy of the copies, and the substance of the laws was widely available, so any defect was merely formal and did not deprive the petitioner of notice or due process.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a habeas corpus petition filed by Lucis Richardson, who had been convicted of felony murder, attempt to commit robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery following the 1996 killing of a taxicab driver during an attempted robbery. Richardson claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to introduce evidence of his mental disabilities at the pretrial suppression hearing to challenge the voluntariness of his statements to police under Miranda. The habeas court denied the petition, and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The court concluded that Richardson's brief was inadequate because it failed to analyze whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or how any deficiency caused prejudice under the Strickland test.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Gregory Seekins, convicted after a jury trial of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence in violation of General Statutes §14-227a (a)(1). Seekins appealed the trial court's denial of his request for a jury instruction permitting an inference from the police's refusal to administer a Breathalyzer test after his initial refusal but later request. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the defendant was not entitled as a matter of law to the requested instruction because it did not concern a recognized legal defense. The court reasoned that prior precedent rejected consciousness-of-innocence instructions in this context, the defendant's refusal was properly documented after he invoked his right to counsel, and the police were not obligated to administer the test afterward.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a real estate purchase contract between The Land Group, Inc. and the Palmieri defendants for property in Westport, under which the plaintiff agreed to pay $1.6 million (subject to adjustment based on approved units) and was required to pursue zoning approvals for 13-16 condominium units with due diligence within set periods, including possible extensions. The plaintiff had not filed any zoning application by the extended closing date despite some preparatory work and instead proposed an affordable housing approach, leading the defendants to terminate the contract and seek other buyers. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff breached the contract while the defendants did not, entitling the defendants to liquidated damages and attorney's fees on their counterclaim, and rejected the plaintiff's claims of anticipatory breach and related violations. The appellate court affirmed, upholding the contract interpretation that due diligence was both a promise and condition, the finding of breach, the termination right, and the fee award as within the trial court's discretion.

property

The case involved an African-American union member who alleged race, color, and later age discrimination after being removed as a steward by his union local in 2004. He filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in October 2004, amended it in April 2006 to add age discrimination, received a release of jurisdiction in August 2006, and sued in Superior Court in November 2006 under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the two-year statute of limitations in General Statutes § 46a-102 runs from the date of the original commission complaint and is not extended or reset by later amendments, making the Superior Court action untimely.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a plaintiff who slipped and fell on accumulated ice or snow on a sidewalk in front of the defendants' apartment building, suffering a fractured ankle, and sued the property owners for negligence. A jury found the defendants 55 percent at fault and awarded damages, but the trial court denied the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict. On appeal, the defendants argued that the court improperly refused to instruct the jury, as requested, under the principles of Kraus v. Newton that a landowner may wait a reasonable time after a storm ends before clearing ice and snow absent unusual circumstances. The appellate court agreed that the evidence of ongoing weather conditions supported such an instruction and that its omission was error, reversing the judgment and remanding for a new trial.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case concerned a mortgage foreclosure action by LPP Mortgage, Ltd., as assignee of a 1992 promissory note for $650,000, against the Lynches to recover the remaining debt after their business defaulted, declared bankruptcy, and had collateral sold. The trial court accepted an attorney trial referee's findings and entered a judgment of foreclosure by sale, awarding $224,486 in principal, interest at 8.75 percent from the 1999 default date, and over $51,000 in attorney's fees. On appeal and cross-appeal, the defendants challenged the interest and fees while the plaintiff disputed the principal amount and fees; the appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the referee's calculations of the debt owed under the note's terms and that the court properly exercised its discretion in the awards.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the conviction of Michael D. Pires, Sr., for murder after he and others assaulted and killed a victim during a drug transaction dispute at a Norwich residence. The defendant appealed on grounds that the trial court denied his constitutional right to self-representation by rejecting his repeated requests to remove appointed counsel and that the jury instructions on intent and his right not to testify were improper. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant's statements did not amount to a clear and unequivocal request to proceed pro se but instead sought substitution of counsel, and that the jury instructions were correct under state law.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights