Court Rulings

Police officers filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of a municipal board's decision to approve a monthly amount of pension benefits for each officer. The petitioners alleged that the municipal board erred in calculating their benefits and in failing to provide them with a hearing in compliance with the contested case procedures in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Upon the city's motion, the trial court dismissed the petition as improperly filed and remanded the matter to the municipal board for a written determination after a hearing. Because the trial court erred in dismissing the petition, we vacate that portion of the judgment. In all other respects, we affirm.

Judgment affirmed where expert provided no testimony or evidence to support finding that appellant/employee had sustained a "closed head injury," and trial court correctly granted motion for directed verdict.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Termaine York, of first degree premeditated murder for a shooting he committed at his former workplace. The Defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of first degree premeditated murder because the State failed to establish premeditation. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Order - Final Disposition: DENY and DISMISS Writ of Certiorari WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The plaintiff sought to recover the security deposit he paid to the defendant, his former landlord, in connection with the second of two residential leases that the parties had executed. The first lease was for approxi- mately twelve months and had an open-ended commencement date that began on the date the plaintiff commenced occupancy. The parties thereafter executed the second lease, which also ran for one year, and, under which, the plaintiff tendered the payment of the security deposit to the defendant pursuant to statute ([Rev. to 2013] § 47a-21 (d) (2)). On the day the plaintiff's tenancy concluded under the second lease, the defendant sent him an e-mail informing him of various items of damage to the property and inquiring whether he would repair the damage. When the plaintiff did not respond, the defendant sent him a second e-mail two weeks later, itemizing the damages and stating that he had incurred remediation costs, a loss of rent as a result of his inability to relet the property because of the damage, and that the plaintiff owed him unpaid rent for the final week of the first lease. The plaintiff then sent the defendant a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, seeking the return of the security deposit. The postal service returned the letter to the plaintiff with a notation that it was unclaimed and unable to be forwarded. In addition to the return of the security deposit, the plaintiff sought double damages pursuant to § 47a-21 (d) (2), and attorney's fees, costs and punitive damages as a result of the defendant's alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking damages for the remediation costs he incurred. The case was tried to an attorney trial referee, who recommended judgment for the plaintiff as to the security deposit, double damages and CUTPA claims, and for the defendant on his counterclaim in part. The trial court adopted the re

The defendant, whose marriage to the defendant had previously been dis- solved, appealed from the decision of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment of dissolution. Prior to the commencement of the dissolution action, the plaintiff forwarded to the defendant an e-mail, which he did not read, which contained information relating to certain pending litigation involving the estate of the plaintiff's uncle. The dissolu- tion judgment incorporated the parties' separation agreement, in which the defendant expressly waived any right to proceeds to be received by the plaintiff in the future as a result of the estate litigation. More than four months later, the defendant filed a motion to open the judgment, claiming that the judgment was obtained as a result of fraudulent misrep- resentations by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff failed to disclose her receipt of an inheritance related to a settlement of the estate litigation. The court denied the motion, finding that the defendant chose not to read the documents regarding the litigation, which were disclosed by the plaintiff, and that there was no fraud on the part of the plaintiff. On the defendant's appeal, held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it applied an incorrect legal standard in denying his motion to open: contrary to the defendant's claim, the court did not improperly assign him a duty of due diligence; the court simply acknowl- edged that a party to a dissolution action cannot ignore documents that were appropriately delivered to him, only to later claim that the disclosed potential asset was fraudulently withheld from him, which was particu- larly true in the present case, where the defendant had ample time and opportunity to review the disclosures, the plaintiff informed the defendant of the potential asset, the defendant signed a separation agreement wherein he waived any right to the potential asset, and the separation agreemen