Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a religious organization, sought to reclaim possession of a commercial property occupied by the defendants through a summary process action. The dispute arose after the founder and former president of the plaintiff, D, transferred his responsibilities to S in 2014. S took possession of the property and operated two companies from it, making regular mortgage payments until his relationship with D deteriorated, leading to a cessation of payments. D then ordered S to vacate the property and purported to remove him from his position. The parties agreed to resolve their disputes before a Bais Din, a rabbinical tribunal, which ruled that S would continue as the leader and make mortgage payments, while D retained ownership of the property for three years.The trial court, the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but ordered a stay to allow arbitration before the Bais Din. The court found that D had signed the arbitration agreement intending to bind the plaintiff and that the ownership issue was to be adjudicated by the Bais Din. However, after the stay period, the court denied the defendants' motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration, concluding that the plaintiff was not a party to any arbitration agreement and that the court would resolve the ownership and landlord-tenant issues.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred in failing to enforce the arbitration agreement. The court held that the plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement, as D signed it in a representative capacity with the intent to bind the plaintiff. The court noted that the arbitration agreement covered all disputes between the parties, including the issue of possession of the property. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case with direction to grant the defendants' motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. View "Chabad Lubavitch of Western & Southern New England, Inc. v. Shemtov" on Justia Law

In a civil action for underinsured motorist benefits, a law firm representing the plaintiff engaged in ex parte communications with an orthopedic surgeon disclosed by the defendant insurance company as an expert witness. The firm scheduled an appointment for the expert to examine the plaintiff and subsequently disclosed the expert as their own witness, indicating that the expert would testify that the plaintiff's shoulder injury was related to the accident. The expert's report, following the examination, supported this causation.The trial court disqualified the expert from testifying and imposed sanctions on the law firm, requiring it to pay the defendant for the expenses incurred in retaining the expert. The court concluded that the law firm's conduct violated Practice Book § 13-4, which it interpreted as implicitly prohibiting ex parte communications with an opposing party's disclosed expert witness. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's order, finding that Practice Book § 13-4 did not clearly prohibit such ex parte communications.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court's decision, agreeing that Practice Book § 13-4 was not reasonably clear in prohibiting ex parte communications with an opposing party's disclosed expert witness. The court emphasized that the rule's current version lacks explicit limiting language and that the difference in treatment between disclosed expert witnesses and nontestifying experts in the rule supports this conclusion. The court declined to exercise its supervisory authority to create a new rule prohibiting such conduct, noting that the issue did not rise to a level warranting such an extraordinary remedy. View "Epright v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a property owner in Fairfield, Connecticut, sought approval from the town's zoning commission to build a forty-unit affordable housing development. The application included a request for a text amendment to the zoning regulations and approval of a site plan and certificate of zoning compliance. The proposed building exceeded the height limits of the residence A zone district, where the property is located, which typically allows only single-family dwellings with a maximum height of thirty-two feet.The zoning commission denied the text amendment request, citing inconsistency with the town's plan of conservation and development, among other reasons. However, it conditionally approved the site plan and certificate of zoning compliance, provided the building height was reduced to three stories and forty feet. The commission justified the height restriction by stating that the proposed building's visibility from a nearby historic district would harm the district's integrity, which it deemed a substantial public interest.The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which consolidated the case with an appeal from four intervenors who opposed the development. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the commission had improperly failed to apply the standards of Connecticut's affordable housing statute (§ 8-30g) to the text amendment request. The court also concluded that the commission did not meet its burden of proving that the height restriction was necessary to protect a substantial public interest that outweighed the need for affordable housing.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the height restriction, agreeing that the commission failed to demonstrate that the restriction was necessary to protect a substantial public interest in historic preservation that outweighed the need for affordable housing. However, the Supreme Court partially reversed the trial court's decision on the text amendment, ruling that § 8-30g applied only to the plaintiff's property and not to the entire residence A zone district. The case was remanded with instructions to grant the text amendment limited to the plaintiff's property. View "131 Beach Road, LLC v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission" on Justia Law

A nonprofit association of homeowners in Woodbridge appealed a decision by the Connecticut Siting Council, which approved a telecommunications company's application to construct a cell phone tower in the town. The plaintiff intervened in the administrative proceeding, arguing that the proposed tower would unreasonably impact nearby scenic resources and vistas. During the hearings, the council stated that property values were not among the statutory criteria to be considered. The telecommunications company presented evidence that the tower would improve cell coverage, while the plaintiff's consultant argued that alternative locations would provide better coverage with less impact on residential neighborhoods.The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's administrative appeal, concluding that the council's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was reasonable. The court noted that the council had considered evidence from residents about the tower's impact on property values and had sufficiently considered alternative locations but found the approved site to be the most appropriate.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the plaintiff had standing to raise the claim about property values. However, the court concluded that a facility's impact on property values is not an enumerated or unenumerated significant adverse effect that the council must consider under the statute. The court also found that the council's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including extensive testimony and documentary evidence about the coverage provided by the proposed and alternative locations. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the council's approval of the tower. View "Woodbridge Newton Neighborhood Environmental Trust v. Connecticut Siting Council" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued a former employee, the defendant, for breaching a noncompete agreement, violating the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and breaching a common-law duty of confidentiality. The defendant, who had signed a noncompete agreement as a condition of continued employment, later established his own floor coating business and used the plaintiff’s proprietary information to develop competing products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also assisted competitors in developing their products.In a separate but related case, the trial court found the noncompete agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and ruled that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. The court also determined that a payment made to the defendant after his resignation was severance pay, not compensation for reaffirming the noncompete agreement. Based on these findings, the trial court in the present case granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying collateral estoppel to preclude further consideration of the issues.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined the noncompete agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the agreement was supported by adequate consideration. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the severance payment was not consideration for reaffirming the noncompete agreement and that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. These rulings were binding in the present case. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with further proceedings required to determine the enforceability and potential breach of the noncompete agreement. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a developer and manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued several individual and corporate defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets, among other claims. The key individual defendant, S, was a former employee who developed a product called Poly-Crete for the plaintiff. After resigning, S started his own business and developed similar products, allegedly using the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The plaintiff claimed that S and other defendants, including companies that tested and used S’s products, misappropriated its trade secrets.The trial court conducted a bench trial in three phases. In the first phase, the court found that the plaintiff’s formulas for Poly-Crete and other products were trade secrets but ruled that the noncompete agreement S signed was unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The court also found that the plaintiff’s common-law confidentiality claim was preempted by the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).In the second phase, the court found that S and some defendants misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets to create products like ProKrete and ProSpartic. However, it ruled that other defendants, including Indue, Krone, ECI, and Merrifield, did not misappropriate the trade secrets as they did not know or have reason to know about the misappropriation. The court also granted attorney’s fees to Krone and ECI, finding the plaintiff’s claims against them were made in bad faith.In the third phase, the court ordered the defendants who misappropriated the trade secrets to disgorge profits and enjoined them from using the trade secrets. The court also sanctioned the plaintiff for attempted spoliation of evidence by its president, F, who tried to remove incriminating photos from the company’s Facebook page during the trial.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on most issues but reversed the judgment regarding the enforceability of the noncompete agreement and the standard for determining misappropriation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these issues. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a foreclosure judgment. The plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, had a loan secured by a mortgage on her property. The defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., acquired the loan and later counterclaimed to foreclose the mortgage. The trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and remanded the case for the setting of new law days. On remand, the plaintiff objected to the defendant's motion to reset the law days, arguing that the judgment of strict foreclosure did not account for the substantial increase in property values that had occurred during the appeal. The trial court concluded that it had no authority to revisit the merits of the strict foreclosure judgment, as it was bound by the Appellate Court’s rescript order requiring the setting of new law days. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal with the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the trial court was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from entertaining the plaintiff’s request to modify the judgment of strict foreclosure and order a foreclosure by sale. The court also held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court lacked authority to entertain the plaintiff’s request. The court further held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff was required to file a motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and to present evidence that the value of the subject property had substantially increased since the date of the original judgment before the trial court could exercise that authority. The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wahba v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A man convicted of murder sued his former attorney and law firm for legal malpractice and fraud, alleging they failed to properly represent him in a federal civil rights action and a state habeas action. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims related to the habeas action, concluding they were not ripe for adjudication because the plaintiff's underlying criminal conviction had not been invalidated. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the legal malpractice claim but reversed with respect to the fraud claim.The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's legal malpractice claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Court's reliance on a previous case that a criminally convicted plaintiff's failure to obtain appellate or postconviction relief from his conviction prior to commencing a criminal malpractice action renders the action unripe and presents an issue of justiciability that implicates a court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, the Supreme Court determined that the question was whether a criminally convicted plaintiff who had not obtained appellate or postconviction relief from his conviction has alleged facts sufficient to state a valid cause of action for criminal malpractice. The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff's claim of criminal malpractice should have been the subject of a motion to strike rather than a motion to dismiss. The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed with respect to the plaintiff's claim of criminal malpractice and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cooke v. Williams" on Justia Law

The defendant, Tyhitt Bember, was convicted of felony murder, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in connection with the shooting death of a victim. The defendant, armed with a revolver, had instructed a companion to follow the victim in a car. After confronting the victim on foot, the defendant decided to rob him. When the victim resisted, the defendant shot him five times. The state's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of two witnesses who were facing charges for their involvement in another homicide and had entered into cooperation agreements with the state. The defendant had allegedly confessed his involvement in the victim’s murder to one of these witnesses.The defense moved to preclude the state from introducing the cooperation agreements during its direct examination of the witnesses. The trial court granted the motion but ruled that the prosecutor would be permitted to use leading questions to flesh out the terms of the agreements. The defense also moved for a pretrial hearing regarding the reliability of the witnesses’ proposed trial testimony. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the witnesses’ proposed trial testimony was sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial.The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court had abused its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to question the witnesses during direct examination regarding the specific terms of their cooperation agreements with the state. The defendant also claimed that the prosecutor had impermissibly vouched for the witnesses’ credibility by introducing the truthfulness provisions of their cooperation agreements, eliciting testimony from the witnesses that their attorneys were present in the courtroom, and referencing their prior testimony in other criminal cases on behalf of the state. The defendant further claimed that the trial court had abused its discretion in concluding that the witnesses’ testimony was reliable and admissible.The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the defendant had waived his claim regarding the prosecutor's questioning of the witnesses about their cooperation agreements. The court also held that the prosecutor's introduction of the truthfulness provisions of the witnesses' cooperation agreements did not constitute improper vouching. The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the witnesses' proposed trial testimony was sufficiently reliable to be admissible at trial. View "State v. Bember" on Justia Law

A man convicted of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child appealed his conviction, arguing that he was entitled to access the content of handwritten journals authored by the complainant. The complainant had revealed the existence of these journals during the trial, stating that they were created as part of her therapy following the abuse and contained details about her relationship with the defendant and the abuse he had inflicted. The defendant claimed that these journals constituted a "statement" under relevant rules of practice and that his rights were violated as the prosecutors did not personally review the journals for exculpatory information.The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the defendant had waived his claim to the journals and that the prosecutors were not constitutionally required to personally review the journals. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which agreed with the state's alternative argument that the journals were not subject to disclosure because they did not constitute a statement that was adopted or approved by the complainant. The court also concluded that the Brady review of the journals by a nonlawyer member of the state’s attorney’s office was constitutionally adequate. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court. View "State v. C." on Justia Law