Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme dismissed the writ of error filed by Appellant, who was suspended from the practice of law before the appellate court for a six-month period, holding that an additional order issued by the appellate court in 2018 clarifying the previous order did not violate the ex post facto clause in violation of the United States Constitution.In 2014, the appellate court issued its order suspending Appellant from practice and barring her from representing any client before the appellate court until she filed a motion for reinstatement and that motion had been granted. In 2018, the appellate issued issued an additional order clarifying that the 2014 order precluded Appellant from providing "legal services of any kind in connection with any" appellate court matter until she filed a motion for reinstatement and that motion had been granted. Appellant filed a writ of error, arguing, among other things, that the 2018 order was an unconstitutional ex post facto law because it retroactively prohibited her from engaging in certain conduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that the 2018 did not violate the ex post facto clause or Appellant's due process rights and that Appellant's claims of selective enforcement and discriminatory and retaliatory treatment were not reviewable by the Court. View "Cimmino v. Marcoccia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court affirming Defendant's conviction of two counts of assault in the first degree, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's conviction.At issue in this appeal was what parameters should be used by the trier of fact to assess whether a defendant has inflicted serious physical injury in the form of serious disfigurement to be found guilty of assault in the first degree. Defendant argued that a forearm scar sustained by one victim was insufficient for the jury to find the serious physical injury necessary to support the charge of assault in the first degree. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the victim's disfigurement was not of a magnitude that could be found to substantially detract from the victim's appearance, and therefore, the evidence was insufficient to meet the threshold for serious disfigurement; and (2) the State was not entitled to have Defendant's conviction modified. View "State v. Petion" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this action seeking, inter alia, to enforce a foreign judgment, holding that a plaintiff who is neither a party to a mortgage nor an intended beneficiary of the mortgage has no standing to challenge the enforceability of that mortgage under the Connecticut Limited Liability Company Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 34-130.The trial court entered judgment in part for Plaintiff as against the named defendant and entered judgment for defendant Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (M&T Bank) and set aside certain fraudulent transfers and imposed constructive trusts on certain properties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the M&T Bank mortgage; (2) specified transfers between an owner of property and the limited liability companies of which he is either an officer or equity holder constitute fraudulent transfers under the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-552e(a)(1) and (2) and 52-552f; and (3) the doctrine of reverse piercing of the corporate veil is a viable remedy in Connecticut, and the trial court properly applied it to the facts of this case. View "McKay v. Longman" on Justia Law

In this case alleging negligence against a physician, the Supreme Court recognized a third-party cause of action for negligent misreporting of sexually transmitted disease (STD) test results, holding that a physician who mistakenly informs a patient that he does not have an STD may be held liable in ordinary negligence to the patient's exclusive sexual partner for her resulting injuries when the physician knows that the patient sought testing and treatment for the express benefit of that partner.Plaintiff sued Defendant, a physician, alleging that Defendant had been negligent by misreporting the STD test results of her sexual partner. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to strike, concluding that Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff, even though she was not his patient. View "Doe v. Cochran" on Justia Law

In this foreclosure action, the Supreme Court held that Defendants John Sanzo and Maria Sanzo were not entitled to the homestead exemption, which is available when a creditor forecloses on a judgment lien but not on a consensual lien. See Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-352(b).Plaintiff, Rockstone Capital, LLC held judgment liens against Defendants. The parties agreed to a consensual lien in the form of a mortgage to secure the debt. Defendants defaulted on the mortgage payments, and Plaintiff sought to foreclose on the mortgage. Defendants invoked the homestead exemption. The trial court decided that the exemption should apply and rendered judgment for Plaintiff on the judgment liens, subject to the homestead exemption. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that the homestead exemption did not apply to a consensual lien such as a mortgage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court properly found that the appeal was taken from a final judgment and the mortgage was a consensual lien. View "Rockstone Capital, LLC v. Sanzo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's murder conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant was arrested for drug offenses and the murder of the victim. Five days after Defendant's rent was due for a second month the police searched his apartment without a warrant. The police discovered the victim's cell phone hidden in a bathroom wall. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant did not have a subjective expectation of privacy in the apartment at the time of the search because the lease had expired and Defendant had failed to make rent payments and to secure his belongings in the apartment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under the facts of this case, Defendant established that the apartment was his home and neither his incarceration or his failure to pay rent five days after it was due divested him of his subjective expectation of privacy in his apartment; and (2) because the State did not argue that any error was harmless, the case is remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Jacques" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the grounds that the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., preempted Plaintiff's negligence claims, holding that Defendant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff's claim was preempted under the railroad act.Plaintiff, individually and as executrix of the estate of her late husband (decedent), filed this action against Defendant, Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, claiming that the decedent's injuries and death were proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant when it violated practices and customs with respect to track selection. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the subject matter of Plaintiff's claim was covered by federal regulations addressing speed and track classification. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluding that, to the extent that Plaintiff's claim was viewed as relating to rail safety, it was barred by the railroad act. The Supreme Court reversed after noting the narrow preemption provision in the railroad act, the acknowledgement that the federal regulations provide the minimum safety standards, and the lack of a regulatory provision expressly addressing track selection, Plaintiff's claim was not preempted under the railroad act. View "Murphy v. Darien" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment convicting Defendant of one count of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, holding that the admission of certain hearsay evidence was erroneous, but the error was not of constitutional dimension and was not harmful.The hearsay statements at issue were used to establish that Defendant was the de facto owner of a vehicle registered to a third party. Defendant was a passenger in the vehicle when police officers discovered bricks of heroin and a large sum of cash. On appeal, Defendant argued that the admission of the hearsay statements, which were based on vehicle inspection records, violated his constitutional right to confront a witness against him. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statements regarding the inspection were testimonial but that improper admission of the hearsay evidence was not harmful. View "State v. Sinclair" on Justia Law

In this negligence action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's grant of Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that Spitzer v. Waterbury, 154 A. 157 (Conn. 1931), must be overruled in light of modern case law governing the distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties.Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants, the borough of Naugatuck (town) and several town officials, claiming that Defendants' negligence in maintaining and repairing the town's storm drains and drainage pipes caused the repeated flooding of Plaintiffs' residence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that the negligence claims was barred because, under recent cases clarifying Spitzer, Defendants were acting pursuant to a discretionary function subject to governmental immunity rather than a ministerial function. Plaintiffs appealed, asserting that the Appellate Court improperly failed to follow Spitzer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Spitzer must be overruled in light of more modern case law and statutes governing the distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties; and (2) under more modern cases, the town's duty to maintain and repair its drainage system was discretionary and, therefore, subject to governmental immunity. View "Northrup v. Witkowski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Father's postjudgment motion for a no contact order between his minor child and the child's maternal aunt, holding that Father failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a violation of his fundamental parental right to make decisions regarding his child's associations.Father was granted custody of the child after Mother's death. Plaintiffs, the maternal grandparents, were involved in the child's life until Father terminated their contact. The trial court granted Plaintiffs' petition for visitation. Father filed a postjudgment motion for order asking the trial court to enter an order requiring Plaintiffs to allow no contact between the child and the child's maternal aunt. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that Father failed to produce evidence to show the child's contact with the aunt was inappropriate or put the child in danger. Father appealed, arguing that the trial court's failure to direct Plaintiffs to abide by his parental decisions regarding the child's care violated Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-59 and the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father was not entitled to relief because he failed, as a threshold matter, to articulate a reason in support of the requested condition. View "Boisvert v. Gavis" on Justia Law