This case involved a dispute over the validity of a mechanic's lien filed by ProBuild East, LLC, a building materials supplier, against homeowner Adrian C. Poffenberger's property in Milford, Connecticut, after the general contractor, DJ Flanagan Builders, failed to pay for supplies used in a renovation project. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the lien valid under General Statutes § 49-34 despite an incorrect commencement date on the certificate (due to good faith and lack of prejudice to the defendant), that a lienable fund existed because the defendant still owed the contractor $10,800, and that noncompliance with the Home Improvement Act by the underlying contract did not invalidate the lien; it enforced the lien in the reduced amount and ordered foreclosure by sale. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, applying a clearly erroneous standard of review to the factual findings and upholding the legal conclusions as consistent with the mechanic's lien statutes. The core reasoning emphasized liberal construction of lien certificates to fulfill remedial purposes when errors are not in bad faith and cause no harm, along with statutory provisions limiting liens to amounts owed under the contract after bona fide payments.
In Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc., a UPS driver sued the company and a supervisor after suffering and returning from work-related back injuries, alleging claims including negligent infliction of emotional distress, retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim under General Statutes § 31-51x, and employment discrimination under General Statutes § 46a-60. A jury found in the plaintiff's favor and awarded damages, after which the trial court added reinstatement, back pay, and attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the verdict and most remedies but reversed the attorney's fees award on the emotional distress claim because fees are unavailable for that common-law tort, and it remanded for reconsideration of the motion to direct a verdict on the discrimination claim.
The plaintiffs, homeowners in the Hillcrest Park neighborhood, sued the local tax district and association for negligence, claiming that the defendants' approval of a nearby property subdivision and failure to maintain drainage systems caused severe flooding on their property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the defendants, as a quasi-municipal corporation, were protected by governmental immunity under Connecticut law for their discretionary acts in managing the district, as opposed to ministerial duties.
This case involved a postjudgment motion by the plaintiff father to modify a joint custody order from a 2005 divorce, alleging that the defendant mother had repeatedly denied him parenting access and manipulated their minor child. After temporary orders transferred sole physical custody to the father and multiple hearings, the trial court granted the motion, finding that the mother had engaged in coercive behavior harmful to the child's best interests, was not truthful, and had caused unnecessary litigation and investigations. The court imposed conditions on future modification requests and awarded sole physical custody to the father, citing evidence of the child's improved well-being in his care. On appeal, the defendant raised claims including due process violations and improper reliance on parental alienation concepts, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by the record and authorized under Connecticut law regarding the child's best interests.
The plaintiff, Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC, brought a declaratory and injunctive action against the City of New London and related defendants, alleging that implementation of a municipal development plan for the Fort Trumbull area, including its stormwater management system, caused or was likely to cause unreasonable environmental harm in violation of the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act. After the plaintiff presented its case at trial, the defendants moved for dismissal under Practice Book § 15-8. The trial court granted the motion, finding no prima facie case because the evidence lacked proof of causation linking the defendants' conduct to any unreasonable environmental risk. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of dismissal and the denial of the plaintiff's postjudgment motions, holding that the trial court's conclusions were supported by the record showing inadequate expert testimony and methodology on causation.
This case involved an administrative appeal by Jose Santiago challenging the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his regular driver's license for ten months and his commercial driver's license for life after a 2010 DUI arrest where breath tests showed a blood alcohol content over 0.16. The plaintiff argued that certain police documents were improperly admitted at the hearing, that the tests were not administered within two hours of driving, and that the lifetime commercial license suspension was wrongly applied. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, and the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the hearing officer's findings were supported by substantial evidence, the documents were reliable and admissible in an informal administrative proceeding, the timing requirement was met, and the statute mandated the lifetime disqualification based on the combination of this incident and a prior suspension. The court applied the deferential standard of review for administrative decisions under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.