Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying a motion to intervene on the grounds that it was untimely, holding that the proposed intervenors were not entitled to relief on their claim of error.Plaintiffs appealed to the trial court from a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of New Canaan (Board) upholding the issuance of a zoning permit to Grace Farms Foundation, the intervening defendant. Nearly nineteen months later and after the trial court issued a decision remanding the case to the Board for further proceedings, the proposed intervenors brought the motion to intervene at issue. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it was untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the motion to intervene as of right was untimely. View "Markatos v. Zoning Board of Appeals" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court upholding Defendant's conviction of violating Conn. Gen. Stat. 14-227a(a) and the enhancement of his sentence under Conn. Gen. Stat. 14-227a(g), holding that the appellate court correctly concluded that the trial court had properly sentenced Defendant as a third time offender under section 14-227a(g).At issue on appeal was whether the appellate court erred in concluding that the elements of Florida's driving under the influence statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. 316.193, which Defendant had twice been convicted of violating, were substantially the same as the elements of section 14-227a(a) for enhancement purposes under section 14-227a(g). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the essential elements of section 14-227a(a) and section 316.193 were substantially the same. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiffs in this action for a declaratory judgment to determine whether Plaintiffs were obligated to defend and indemnify Defendant under insurance policies for damages awarded against Defendant in a separate action, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.At issue was whether Plaintiffs, insurers, were obligated to indemnify Defendant, a business owner, under an insurance policy for liability arising from Defendant's false imprisonment of his company's employment at her workplace. The trial court concluded that Plaintiffs had a duty to indemnify Defendant, but the appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. After a trial de novo, the trial court concluded that coverage was barred by the policy's "business pursuits" exclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard at the trial de novo; and (2) Defendant's remaining claims were without merit. View "Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pasiak" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court denying a property owner's motion for summary judgment in the underlying dispute with a contractor arising from a construction project, holding that the trial court correctly denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment.Defendants hired Plaintiff to serve as a general contractor to renovate a home located on Greenwich property. Defendants later terminated their contractual relationship with Plaintiff. Plaintiff served mechanics' liens on Defendants and brought this action to foreclose its lien. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the trial court was required to give res judicata effect to the findings of the trial court in a prior action between Plaintiff and one of Defendants' subcontractors. The trial court denied Defendants' summary judgment motion, determine that all four required elements of res judicata were not met. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court did not err in holding that the presumption of privity that the Supreme Court held to apply in Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc., 208 A.3d 1223 (Conn. 2019), did not apply to the instant case. View "Strazza Building & Construction, Inc. v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that Plaintiff's motion to open and set aside a final judgment of divorce should have been denied instead of dismissed, holding that New York's plenary action rule "was so interwoven with Plaintiff's cause of action as to be deemed substantive."During their divorce trial, the parties in this case settled their dispute by entering into a separation agreement that incorporated New York's plenary action rule. After she moved to Connecticut with her new husband, Plaintiff filed a motion to open and set aside the divorce judgment, claiming fraud on the part of Defendant. The trial court applied New York's plenary action rule and dismissed the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court held (1) under New York substantive law, Plaintiff was required to bring a plenary action; but (2) the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to open, and therefore, the motion should have been denied rather than dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plenary action rule was substantive, and therefore, the appellate court correctly determined that Plaintiff's motion to open and vacate the divorce judgment should have been denied. View "Gershon v. Back" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a minor and two counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that the trial court improperly failed to order that certain material be turned over to the defense and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by not ordering disclosure of the victims' psychiatric records to the defense. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the trial court (1) committed harmful error by failing to order that exculpatory and relevant impeachment material contained in the victims' psychiatric records be turned over to the defense; (2) improperly precluded cross-examination of the mothers of the victims concerning their U visa applications; and (3) improperly instructed the jury. View "State v. Juan A. G.-P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court in this action to recover damages for Defendants' alleged medical malpractice affirming the trial court's judgment granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the Supreme Court incorrectly concluded in Morgan v. Hartford Hospital, 21 A.3d 451 (Conn. 2011), that the opinion letter requirement implicates the court's personal jurisdiction for purposes of the procedures attendant to a motion to dismiss.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the appellate court incorrectly concluded that the trial court should not have considered an affidavit filed by Plaintiff to supplement a potentially defective opinion letter as an alternative to amending the operative complaint. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the opinion letter requirement is a unique, statutory procedural device that does not implicate the superior court's jurisdiction; (2) the sufficiency of the opinion letter is to be determined solely on the basis of the allegations in the complaint and on the face of the opinion letter, without resorting to a jurisdictional fact-finding process; and (3) the opinion letter at issue in this case was legally sufficient under Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-190a. View "Carpenter v. Daar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Insurer in this action brought to determine whether business losses suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic were covered by the relevant policies, holding that Insured's losses were not covered by the two insurance policies at issue.Before the pandemic, Insurer sold two insurance policies to Insured. Insurer later initiated this action seeking a judgment declaring that Insured's business losses incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic were not covered under the policies. The trial court concluded that there was no coverage under either policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly entered summary judgment for Insurer because Insured's losses plainly and unambiguously were not covered by either policy. View "Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Moda, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this dispute over whether a property insurance policy providing coverage for "direct physical loss of or physical damage to" covered property provided coverage for business income losses arising from the suspension of business operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the trial court correctly granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment.Plaintiffs, who suspended their business operations during the COVID-19 pandemic and consequently lost business income and incurred other expenses, filed claims for losses with Defendants. After Defendants denied the claims Plaintiffs brought this actin seeking a judgment declaring that the relevant insurance policies covered their economic losses under the circumstances. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiffs did not suffer any "direct physical loss" of covered property, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the policies did not cover Plaintiffs' claims. View "Connecticut Dermatology Group, PC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and the controversy over whether a mandate should be implemented requiring the state's schoolchildren to wear masks while in school, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction.In June 2020, the state Department of Education, the state Commissioner of Education, and the Governor (collectively, Defendants) undertook to mandate that schoolchildren wear masks in school. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit challenging the legality of Defendants' school mask mandate and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief. Plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the Department repealed the school mask mandate while this appeal was pending, the appeal was moot. View "Conn. Freedom Alliance, LLC v. Dep't of Education" on Justia Law