Douglas S. Lavine

The case concerned whether Wilmington Trust Company, as a downstream property owner and intervenor, was entitled to attorney’s fees after the Conservation Commission of Fairfield sued Red 11, LLC for violating the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act by filling and draining protected wetlands without permits. Wilmington had intervened in the administrative and court proceedings under the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act and later joined as a party-plaintiff, alleging additional violations and trespass. The trial court awarded Wilmington $391,967.80 in fees under General Statutes § 22a-44 (b), which allows such fees to the “person which brought such action.” On appeal, the court held that Wilmington qualified as having brought the action through its intervention and claims, and that the fee amount was reasonable given the hours worked, rates, and litigation delays caused by the defendant. The judgment awarding the fees was affirmed.

environment

The case involved the appeal of Denis J. Hickey from his conviction on charges of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child, stemming from incidents with a five-year-old victim. The defendant raised multiple claims on appeal, including the denial of a continuance to obtain private counsel and investigate, the admission of evidence regarding prior uncharged sexual misconduct and hearsay statements, prosecutorial misconduct, double jeopardy violations from consecutive sentences, and the denial of in camera review of the victim's mental health records. The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary and procedural rulings and no violation of the defendant's rights.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a property owner who sued the Connecticut Department of Transportation and its commissioner for damages from flooding on her land allegedly caused by the state's repaving of an adjacent highway. After the first action was dismissed by nonsuit for the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with discovery orders and appear for a deposition, she refiled under the accidental failure of suit statute. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the new action, and the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the statute did not apply because the prior dismissal was based on the plaintiff's willful noncompliance with court orders rather than excusable mistake or a matter of form.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Lameirao, the defendant appealed his convictions on multiple charges, including attempt to commit risk of injury to a child, risk of injury to a child, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, and operating while his license was suspended, along with violations of probation, after the trial court denied his motion to withdraw guilty pleas and admissions. He argued that the court failed to personally address him as required by Practice Book §§ 39-19 and 39-20 during the plea hearing, provided misleading advisements about the facts constituting the elements of the crimes, and that his pleas were not intelligent and voluntary due to ineffective counsel. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the plea canvass complied with procedural requirements, the pleas were properly accepted as voluntary and intelligent, and counsel's representation was not ineffective.

criminal lawprocedure

In Argentinis v. Fortuna, property owners sued adjoining owners, contractors including self-represented defendant Brian Harte, and others alleging adverse possession of a disputed strip of land, intentional removal of bushes and trees in violation of General Statutes § 52-560, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and private nuisance from grading and water runoff. After Harte failed to plead, a default was entered against him; he did not attend the subsequent hearing in damages, and the trial court rendered judgment including treble and punitive damages. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment in part, concluding that entry of the default judgment constituted plain error that warranted reversal under the court's supervisory powers to ensure the fair administration of justice, given constraints on latitude for self-represented parties and deficiencies in notice, evidence linking Harte to the acts, and the damages award.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns the termination of a father's parental rights to his daughter Destiny R. under Connecticut statute § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), following a finding that the child was neglected and the father failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation. The trial court terminated the rights after determining the father had not complied with specific steps for reunification, remained involved in the criminal justice system, and was reluctant to participate in offered programs. On appeal, the father challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these findings, but the appellate court affirmed the termination, holding that rehabilitation requires gaining insight and ability to care for the child within a reasonable time, not just completing steps, and that the trial court's conclusions were factually supported.

family lawcriminal law

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Sonepar Distribution New England, Inc., against T & T Electrical Contractor’s, Inc., and Gerard T. Beaudoin III, seeking payment of $59,114.67 plus interest for electrical materials the plaintiff alleged it had delivered to the defendant’s storage facility. After the plaintiff presented its case at a bench trial, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Practice Book § 15-8, concluding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of delivery of the goods. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the court had improperly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the correct prima facie standard when ruling on the motion to dismiss, and that it had presented sufficient evidence of delivery. The appellate court agreed that the wrong standard had been used but held the error harmless because the trial court was the ultimate factfinder, and it affirmed the judgment of dismissal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns property owners Alfonso and Beverly Sgritta who leased space to an unlicensed massage establishment and received a cease-and-desist order from Stamford health officials citing nine local ordinance violations. The owners appealed to the state commissioner of public health, arguing the order should not have been directed at them as non-operating lessors and that the hearing officer lacked jurisdiction over some citations; the commissioner upheld most of the order under General Statutes § 19a-206. The trial court dismissed the owners’ administrative appeal, finding no prejudice from the partial jurisdiction ruling and confirming that the statute permits orders against premises owners. On further appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the owners failed to show prejudice and that the plain language of § 19a-206 authorized enforcement against them regardless of their lack of operational control.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerns Bruce Zollo's appeal from the denial of certification to appeal the dismissal of his second habeas corpus petition after his convictions for first-degree kidnapping, sexual assault in a spousal relationship, and related charges. The appellate court determined that the second habeas court abused its discretion by denying certification but properly granted the motion to dismiss, ruling the petition successive under Practice Book § 23-29 because the claims, including those based on an alleged mid-trial plea offer, could have been raised or discovered through due diligence in the first habeas proceeding. The core reasoning applied standards from Simms v. Warden and Strickland v. Washington, concluding no new facts or evidence justified a successive filing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wabno v. City of Derby, the plaintiff, a police officer, appealed a workers’ compensation review board decision affirming the dismissal of his claim for benefits under the Heart and Hypertension Act, General Statutes § 7-433c, on grounds that it was filed more than one year after he had knowledge of his hypertension diagnosis. The commissioner had found that the plaintiff received notice of hypertension as early as May 6, 1999, based on medical records showing blood pressure readings, notations of “HTN,” prescriptions for antihypertensive medications, and expert testimony, and he did not file his notice of claim until April 2005. Following the Connecticut Supreme Court’s clarification in Ciarlelli v. Hamden regarding when the one-year limitation period under § 31-294c(a) begins to run, the Appellate Court held that the commissioner’s finding was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the board’s decision.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Eloise Marinos, as widow and administratrix of attorney Steven Meo's estate, suing former associate David Poirot and attorney Gordon Johnson over allegations that Poirot improperly planned to open his own practice, took clients and resources from the Meo law office, and conspired with Johnson on certain cases after Meo's death. The plaintiff brought multiple claims including breach of loyalty, conversion, civil theft, computer offenses, and CUTPA violations, seeking damages and other relief. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced evidence of measurable or ascertainable damages or harm from the alleged acts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence submitted failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on damages and that speculative assertions were insufficient.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a law firm suing a former client for unpaid legal fees exceeding $169,000, with the client counterclaiming over alleged billing issues. During court-annexed mediation, the parties reached an oral settlement that was recited on the record in open court, after which the firm moved to enforce it and the client resisted on statute of frauds grounds. The trial court granted enforcement, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that General Statutes § 52-550(a) did not apply because the motion did not commence a new civil action and the in-court stipulation resolved the existing dispute. The decision relied on precedents holding that settlements placed on the record are enforceable without a signed writing.

procedure

The case involved defendant Robert H. Furbush, who was convicted after a bench trial of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle and two counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol following a fatal collision on September 2, 2003. The trial court found that Furbush drove while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of 0.248, crossed the center line, and struck the victim's vehicle, causing the victim's death; it rejected defense challenges to the state's accident reconstruction experts. On appeal, Furbush claimed errors including an incomplete trial transcript, compelled disclosure of counsel's notes to reconstruct the record, improper admission of expert testimony, and insufficient evidence for the manslaughter conviction. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgments, holding that the reconstructed record was adequate, the notes disclosure did not violate the right to counsel, the expert testimony was properly admitted, and the evidence supported the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a residents' association suing a mobile home park operator for alleged violations of state statutes governing mobile home parks, local ordinances, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, based on issues like park maintenance and lease renewal practices. After the plaintiff filed an administrative complaint that led to a department investigation and eventual closure of the file upon finding substantial compliance, the trial court ruled for the defendant on the merits. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies through the Department of Consumer Protection before filing suit, meaning the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the action should have been dismissed.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case Marmo v. Marmo involved an appeal by the defendant from a trial court judgment dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, challenging the award of time-limited alimony and an order regarding the sale of the marital home. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court reasoned that trial courts have broad discretion in domestic relations cases, including alimony awards under General Statutes § 46b-82, and there was no abuse of discretion because the four-year alimony period was intended to allow the defendant to complete her education and become self-sufficient, coinciding with the children's graduation from high school.

family law

The case involved a landlord suing its commercial tenant, a radiology practice, for over $500,000 in unpaid rent and additional charges after the tenant vacated the Bridgeport property in late 2008 and surrendered possession in 2009. The tenant had claimed the landlord breached the 15-year lease by erecting a fence that prevented use of a reserved parking area described in paragraph 32.03, while the landlord contended an enforceable lease existed and rent obligations were independent. The trial court entered judgment for the tenant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the parties never formed a valid lease because there was no meeting of the minds on the material parking provision, as shown by their conflicting understandings of its location, the tenant's repeated complaints, and the landlord's failure to resolve the issue.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Thomas v. State, the petitioner sought a new trial after his 2004 jury convictions on drug possession and sale charges and his 2005 nolo contendere plea to additional drug charges, arguing that newly discovered evidence of criminal misconduct by two police detectives who had testified about his uncharged prior drug activity warranted relief under General Statutes § 52-270. The trial court granted the state's motion to strike the count related to the plea and denied the petition as to the jury convictions. The appellate court affirmed, holding that no evidentiary record existed for the plea-based count because no trial occurred and that, under the Asherman test, the impeachment evidence regarding the detectives was unlikely to produce a different result at a new trial on the jury convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Buie, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of aiding and abetting aggravated sexual assault, attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault, conspiracy, and burglary after evidence including a dildo, BB guns, and duct tape was recovered from his apartment. The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that police entry into his apartment without a warrant based on his girlfriend's apparent authority violated article first, § 7 of the Connecticut constitution, even though the doctrine is accepted under the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the apparent authority doctrine is consistent with the state constitution's protection against unreasonable searches. The core reasoning examined prior Connecticut precedents on consent searches and warrant exceptions, finding no textual or historical basis to diverge from federal standards and concluding that the girlfriend's statements provided objectively reasonable grounds for police to believe she had authority to consent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Connecticut's trial court could place two children with their out-of-state noncustodial father without first obtaining an approved home study under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, General Statutes § 17a-175. After the mother was arrested on drug-related charges, the children were removed from her care; the father, residing in Pennsylvania, sought custody, but the trial court ruled that the compact applied and required the study before placement. The father and children appealed that ruling. By the time of the appeal, however, the compact study had been completed and approved, the children had been adjudicated neglected, and the court had granted the father physical custody with six months of protective supervision, so the children were already living with him. The Appellate Court held the appeals moot because no live controversy remained and the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception did not apply, depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing Williams Scotsman for injuries Joseph Soracco sustained in a workplace fall from a construction trailer, with his employer Manafort Brothers intervening to recover workers' compensation benefits paid to Soracco. After a failed mediation and a partial settlement between the plaintiffs and defendant, the trial court denied their joint motion to enforce the $750,000 agreement as a judgment. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeals, concluding that denial of the motion was not a final judgment because the parties retained the ability to settle or proceed to trial on the remaining claims.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment