F Herbert Gruendel

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

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.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

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.

family law

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.

environmentpropertyprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a foreclosure action brought by TD Banknorth (later substituted by Middlefield Holdings, LLC) against White Water Mountain Resorts and guarantor Kenneth Leavitt to enforce mortgages on commercial and residential properties securing two promissory notes totaling over $2.4 million. After defaults, foreclosure by sale of the commercial property, and a subsequent judgment of strict foreclosure on the defendant's residential property, Leavitt appealed the denial of his motion to open the judgment and related rulings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the motion to open was properly interpreted as untimely under General Statutes § 52-212a and directed at an earlier judgment, that the court lacked authority to open it, and that the defendant's pleadings could not be construed as a writ of audita querela because they were filed before the final judgment.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a habeas corpus petition by Arthur J. Davis, who was convicted of six murders committed in 1966 and originally sentenced to death, later resentenced to consecutive life terms in 1972 under pre-1971 statutes after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the death penalty. Davis argued that he was entitled to resentencing under the indeterminate sentencing provisions of General Statutes § 53a-35, which would set minimum terms between 10 and 25 years per count rather than the 25-year minimums used by the Department of Correction for calculating parole eligibility. The habeas court granted summary judgment for the respondent commissioner, and the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the 1971 and 1980 amendments creating indeterminate sentencing do not apply retroactively to offenses committed before October 1, 1971, that Davis was properly sentenced under the statutes in effect at the time of his crimes and resentencing, and that the department's good-time calculations were consistent with the governing law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim for survivor's benefits under General Statutes § 31-306 after Richard Brooks died of lung cancer linked to asbestos exposure during his employment history from 1969 to 1995. The commissioner found that Brooks' exposure while employed by W.J. Barney Corporation in 1988 was the last significant injurious exposure and held Barney (with liability transferred to the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association) responsible under the last-employer rule of § 31-299b, as later exposures were minimal and not substantial contributors to the cancer. The workers' compensation review board affirmed, and the Appellate Court upheld that decision, concluding that the commissioner's factual findings on exposure levels and credibility were supported by evidence in the record, including medical opinions and the decedent's testimony. The court applied the deferential standard of review for workers' compensation appeals, which requires sustaining the commissioner's inferences unless they are unreasonable or based on an incorrect application of law.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs initiated a foreclosure action on a mortgage against defendant Carmichael Brushie, who then filed a cross complaint against co-defendant Stonkus alleging fraud, conversion, statutory theft, and related claims seeking to quiet title. The trial court granted a motion to sever the cross complaint from the foreclosure complaint, ordering separate trials, and the foreclosure trial proceeded despite Stonkus's appeal and claim of an automatic stay. Stonkus appealed the severance order, arguing abuse of discretion and impeded appeal rights, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the record was inadequate for review because no transcript of the severance hearing was provided and that the claims were inadequately briefed with insufficient analysis of cited authority.

procedureproperty

This case involves Brian Niblack's appeal from the denial of his petition for certification to appeal a habeas court's rejection of his writ of habeas corpus. Niblack had pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine to murder and escape from custody stemming from a 1987 shooting, receiving a 50-year sentence, and later claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to properly advise him on his plea and appeal rights. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that Niblack had not properly addressed the habeas court's denial of certification in his principal brief and had failed to make a substantial showing of a state or federal constitutional violation, as his claims regarding counsel's performance lacked merit even if fully briefed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a prisoner who sued the state of Connecticut after sustaining injuries in a multi-vehicle accident during transport between correctional facilities. The plaintiff alleged negligence by the state employee driving the vehicle and sought uninsured motorist benefits due to the unidentified tractor-trailer that caused the crash. The jury found for the state on the negligence count but awarded the plaintiff damages on the uninsured motorist claim, later reduced to the policy limit of $20,000. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed the trial court improperly instructed the jury on apportionment of liability among the parties, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment because the claim was unpreserved—the plaintiff neither submitted a request to charge nor objected to the instruction at trial as required by court rules.

proceduretorts & liability

The plaintiffs, owners of a 2.4-acre parcel in Glastonbury, applied for a special permit to construct a commercial building with a drive-through but were denied by the planning and zoning commission due to concerns over scale, neighborhood impact, and landscaping. They then sued the town, alleging a regulatory taking under the state and federal constitutions on the ground that no reasonable use of the property remained possible. The trial court granted the town's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding the claim was not ripe because the plaintiffs had not shown the denial was final. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed, holding that the motion raised disputed factual issues about alternative uses that could not be resolved on the pleadings and affidavits alone. It ruled that an evidentiary hearing was required before dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Bruno, the defendant, convicted of murder and tampering with physical evidence in 1993 and sentenced to 60 years, filed a motion for a new trial in 2009—16 years later—claiming his waiver of a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The trial court denied the motion, ruling it lacked jurisdiction, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that a sentencing court's jurisdiction generally ends once the sentence begins, and neither Practice Book §§ 42-53 and 42-54 nor General Statutes § 52-270 provided authority to consider the motion on the merits, as the motion was not properly instituted as a separate proceeding and was filed well beyond the three-year statute of limitations in § 52-582. The defendant had already pursued multiple unsuccessful habeas petitions raising similar claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a non-citizen defendant who pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree in 2003 after the trial court warned him during the plea canvass about potential immigration consequences such as deportation. More than seven years later, he moved to vacate the plea, alleging his trial counsel had not explained those consequences. The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that jurisdiction generally ends once a sentence is imposed, the statutory warning requirements under General Statutes § 54-lj were satisfied, and the motion was untimely under the statute's three-year limit.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a collection action by Cadle Company against the coexecutors of an estate to recover amounts due on a $1 million promissory note executed by the decedent in 1985 and acquired by the plaintiff in 1994. The trial court struck the defendants' counterclaims for unfair trade practices, abuse of process, and vexatious litigation; allowed the case to proceed to a jury trial that awarded the plaintiff $810,245.59 in principal plus interest and collection costs; denied post-trial motions to set aside the verdict; and awarded statutory post-judgment interest at 10 percent while barring a 2 percent delinquency charge. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to strike the prayer for relief, the striking of the counterclaims, and the verdict itself, reasoning that the evidence supported the jury findings, the counterclaims lacked merit, and procedural rulings were proper; it reversed on post-judgment interest because the contractual rate controls over the statutory rate under applicable precedent and confirmed that the delinquency charge was properly excluded as an impermissible late fee. The plaintiff cross-appealed unsuccessfully on the delinquency charge.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a former police officer who retired from the Town of Middlebury at age 38 with 14 years of service and later sued the town, alleging he was entitled to a normal retirement benefit under the municipal plan and asserting promissory estoppel based on an actuary's calculation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the town on both claims, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the plan's plain language required either 25 years of credited service or age 65 for normal retirement eligibility, conditions the plaintiff did not meet. The estoppel claim failed because the plaintiff could not demonstrate reasonable reliance, as the calculation was provided years after retirement and conflicted with his deposition testimony and the plan terms.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this marital dissolution case, Gary Brown appealed the trial court's financial orders, claiming abuse of discretion in awarding his ex-wife Karen Brown $20,000 per month in nonmodifiable alimony and in excluding evidence of his financial condition at trial. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court had broad discretion to fashion alimony awards under General Statutes §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82 based on the length of the marriage, the parties' assets valued at around $3.1 million, their history of living on $600,000 to $1 million in annual tax-free cash withdrawals from businesses and investments, and the plaintiff's lavish lifestyle. The trial court reasonably viewed the plaintiff's testimony about limited income and business value as self-serving and exaggerated, and any error in excluding additional evidence was harmless because it would not have altered the outcome. The alimony order was supported by the statutory criteria and the evidence presented.

family lawproperty

The case concerned a workers' compensation claim in which the commissioner imposed a $100 sanction on the plaintiff's counsel for arriving late to an informal hearing. The review board dismissed the resulting appeal on the ground that no record existed for review. The Appellate Court reversed that dismissal, concluding that a record was in fact before the board and that the sanction could not stand because the commissioner had made no finding, as required by statute, that the delay was unreasonable and without good cause, nor had the attorney been given notice or an opportunity to be heard.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract dispute arising from a 1997 agreement granting Motiva exclusive logistical and storage rights at Wyatt's New Haven port terminal for ten years. Wyatt unilaterally terminated the agreement in 2000, sold the terminal to a third party without requiring assumption of the contract obligations, and defended against Motiva's counterclaim by asserting that Motiva's purchase of a nearby terminal created an antitrust violation excusing its performance. The trial court rejected Wyatt's antitrust defense, found that Wyatt had materially breached the agreement by improper termination and failure to assign obligations, and awarded damages to Motiva. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that Wyatt failed to establish an actual antitrust violation under Connecticut law that would justify its conduct, that the correct market standards were applied, and that the breach and damages findings were proper.

business & regulatory