Connecticut Appeals

Advance Release Opinions - Review and Analysis

Home » Archives for July 2018

Archives for July 2018

Advance Release Opinions – Appellate Court – July 20

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about civil procedure, contracts (third-party beneficiary), easement, and worker’s compensation.

Civil Procedure

Magee Avenue, LLC v. Lima Ceramic Tile, LLC – Action for breach of lease agreement and unjust enrichment against Lima and Lima’s manager. Lima’s manager moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract counts but did not file a supporting affidavit until the day before the hearing. At the hearing, Magee objected to the affidavit because it was filed too late to be considered and was not based on personal knowledge. Trial court permitted Lima’s manager to testify. It then granted Lima’s manager summary judgment on the breach of contract counts and the unjust enrichment count (trial court’s decision said the complaint is “stricken” as to Lima’s manager, but Appellate Court concluded it was really summary judgment). Appellate Court reversed, finding that trial court (1) improperly considered Lima’s manager’s affidavit because it was filed too late under Practice Book § 17-45; (2) improperly permitted and considered Lima’s manager’s live testimony because that necessarily required trial court to make credibility determinations and factual findings, which necessarily precluded summary judgment; and (3) improperly rendered summary judgment on the unjust enrichment count because Lima’s manager’s written motion did not request summary judgment on that count.

Contracts (Third-Party Beneficiary)

Hilario’s Truck Center, LLC v. Rinaldi – Appellate Court affirmed trial court’s decision that Hilario’s lacked standing to sue Nationwide directly for towing and storage services it rendered for Rinaldi after she crashed her car because Hilario’s was not a third-party beneficiary of the insurance contract between Nationwide and Rinaldi.

Easement

Davis v. Property Owners Association at Moodus Lake Shores, Inc. – Appellate Court affirmed (1) trial court’s decision to permit defense experts to testify despite the arguably late disclosure because plaintiffs failed to show any prejudice; and (2) trial court’s denial of an easement by implication because the evidence showed that plaintiffs could access their property without crossing defendant’s (Appellate Court actually adopted the trial court’s memorandum of decision on this point, but Appellate Court’s decision earlier references the access evidence).

Worker’s Compensation

Barker v. All Roofs by Dominic – Bridgeport was “principal employer” under CGS § 31-291 and thus responsible for benefits for the employee of an uninsured subcontractor who was injured while repairing a roof on a Bridgeport-owned building because (1) our Supreme Court had already confirmed that a municipality can be a principal employer under § 31-291; (2) the statute creating the Second Injury Fund, which compensates injured employees of uninsured employers, did not expressly or implicitly repeal or modify § 31-291; and (3) commissioner properly concluded that the roofing repairs to the Bridgeport-owned building were part of Bridgeport’s “business” under § 31-291, since CGS § 7-148 obligated Bridgeport to repair its property.

 

Advance Release Opinions – Supreme Court – July 20

by

Reviews of Connecticut Supreme Court advance release opinions about administrative law and civil procedure.

Administrative Law

Kuchta v. Arisian – I list the topics alphabetically, and though I’m not sure that this case is really about administrative law, I wanted it to be first since it was in the news. Arisian hired Baybrook Remodelers, Inc. for some home improvements. She later put up a sign on her property confirming, “I Do Not Recommend Baybrook.” She also put up two other signs graphically (in the bar graph sense) representing, under the caption “BAYBROOK REMODELERS’ TOTAL LAWSUITS,” the number of cases in which Baybrook was supposedly a party. Kuchta, Milford’s zoning enforcement officer, ordered Arisian to remove the signs, claiming that they violated zoning regulations on the size, height, and number of signs. When Arisian did not comply, Kuchta sought an injunction in Superior Court. Arisian’s special defense was that Milford lacked authority to regulate her signs under CGS § 8-2 because they were not “advertising signs.” Trial court agreed that the signs were not advertising and denied the injunction. After lengthy analysis, the Supreme Court confirmed the signs were not “advertising signs” under § 8-2, which it defined as “any form of public announcement intended to aid directly or indirectly in the sale of goods or services, in the promulgation of a doctrine or idea, in securing attendance, or the like.”

But that’s not all. Kuchta had also sought to enjoin Arisian from occupying the property until she obtained a new certificate of occupancy, which required her to submit a new as-built plot plan. Arisian, of course, had been relying on Baybrook to do that. And, Baybrook, of course, did not. At the time the case had gone to trial more than four years later, Arisian had submitted the as-built, but it reflected a zoning violation, so the building department declined to issue the certificate of occupancy. Trial court denied the injunction because the circumstances did not justify that extraordinary remedy, but fined Arisian $1,000 for taking more than four years to submit a proper as-built. Supreme Court affirmed.

Walgreen Eastern Company, Inc. v. West Hartford – Real property tax appeal. Assessor set fair market value at $5,020,000. Board of Assessment appeals affirmed. Walgreen’s appealed to Superior Court, alleging one count under CGS § 12-117a that it was aggrieved because the assessor overvalued the property; and one count under CGS § 12-119 that the assessment was manifestly excessive. Trial court heard expert testimony and, on the § 12-117a claim, set fair market value at $4,900,000, and ordered West Hartford to correct any overpayment. Trial court denied the § 12-119 claim. Supreme Court affirmed on both claims, finding that trial court properly determined property’s true and actual value, and Walgreen’s had failed to establish assessment was manifestly excessive.

Can anyone tell me the practical difference between § 12-117a and § 12-119? They both seem to give the court the authority to reduce the assessment. It is not clear to me what more you get if the assessment is manifestly excessive.

Civil Procedure

Mendillo v. Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP – Mendillo is a lawyer who represented the plaintiff in an employment action against her former employer, a not-for-profit, and the not-for-profit’s executive director, and the chairperson of its board. The Tinley firm represented the defendants. Mendillo apparently communicated with other putative members of the not-for-profit’s board about the not-for-profit’s counterclaim in the employment action. The trial court in the employment action agreed with the Tinley firm’s assertion that Mendillo had violated Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, and issued a protective order precluding Mendillo from further contact with board members absent the Tinley firm’s consent. Mendillo filed a writ of error, which the Appellate Court dismissed. Supreme Court denied certification, and also denied Mendillo’s motion for reconsideration of that denial. Mendillo filed a second writ of error in the Supreme Court challenging the Appellate Court’s actions. Supreme Court dismissed the second writ, and denied Mendillo’s motion for reconsideration en banc. So, Mendillo filed a new action against the Tinley firm and the Appellate Court, asserting multiple grounds for a declaratory judgment, all essentially attacking the protective order in the employment action. Trial court granted Appellate Court’s and the Tinley firm’s motion to dismiss. Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Mendillo’s claims were nonjusticiable: No practical relief was available to Mendillo because his declaratory judgment action was nothing more than a collateral attack on the protective order in the employment action, which had been fully and finally adjudicated on the first writ of error by the Appellate Court’s decision and the Supreme Court’s denial of certification.

 

Advance Release Opinions – July 13

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about administrative law, child custody, divorce, easement, mortgage foreclosure, and professional negligence.

Administrative Law

Handel v. Commissioner of Social Services – Social Services denied Handel’s request for benefits more than 90 days after she requested a fair hearing. Trial court affirmed. Appellate Court reversed and directed judgment for Handel because Social Services failed to make final decision with 90 days as the statute required.

Child Custody

In re Katherine H. – Appellate Court affirmed trial court judgments finding respondent’s two children neglected, and committing them to DCF, because respondent failed to demonstrate that any of the trial court’s findings was clearly erroneous.

In re Zoey H. – Trial court found child uncared for and committed her to DCF by agreement of mother and the putative father, who was not, as it later turned out, the biological father. Later, the biological father intervened and petitioned to revoke the commitment to DCF. Trial court denied that petition. Biological father tried again with a new petition, and trial court denied it again. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that, because the child was adjudicated uncared for before biological father got involved, it was not (1) a deprivation of procedural due process to commit the child to DCF before assessing biological father’s fitness as a parent; or (2) a deprivation of substantive due process to deny biological father a presumption of fitness.

Divorce

Conroy v. Idlibi – Appellate Court affirmed divorce judgment, rejecting Idlibi’s claims that (1) Conroy was responsible for the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage; and (2) certain financial awards unfairly favored Conroy.

Zilkha v. Zilkha – Over defendant’s opposition, trial court granted guardian ad litem’s motion for an increase in her hourly rate. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that trial court (1) properly precluded defendant from eliciting testimony about guardian’s putative bias because the proceeding was about the hourly rate, not misconduct; and (2) properly set the hourly rate at the higher end of the Judicial Branch’s sliding scale given the hourly rates of the parties’ attorneys, complexity of the issues, and availability of other household income.

Easement

Hum v. Silvester – Trial court properly concluded that the Silvesters had acquired a prescriptive easement to use the Hums’ driveway to access their property. A prescriptive easement is essentially an easement acquired by adverse possession. CGS § 47-37

Mortgage Foreclosure

Bank of America, N.A. v. Kydes – Bank had standing to foreclose because Kydes, by failing to answer or object to Bank’s requests for admissions, admitted Bank was the holder of the note, and never presented any evidence to rebut the resulting presumption of ownership.

Professional Negligence

Corneroli v. Kutz – Legal malpractice. Though not at all relevant to the decision, certain facts are captivating: D’Amico bought a painting at a yard sale for $3. Turned out to be a John Singer Sargent worth millions. But D’Amico couldn’t get the painting authenticated as a Sargent so he couldn’t realize its value. Then D’Amico died. Enter his cousin, Corneroli, who said he and D’Amico agreed that if Corneroli got the painting authenticated, D’Amico would go halfsies with him on the profit. Corneroli entrusted the painting to a guy named Borghi, and it seems Borghi double-crossed Corneroli by selling it to a guy named Adelson for $1.2 million without telling Corneroli. Adelson then apparently sold it to someone else for millions more than he paid for it. Corneroli sued Borghi, Adelson and the second buyer, but did not include D’Amico’s estate in the case. Corneroli recovered some $300,000 from Borghi. D’Amico’s estate later brought its own action and settled with Adelson for $2.4 million. Corneroli then filed a claim against the estate for a chunk of that $2.4 million. Probate Court disallowed the claim.

Now we come to the facts pertinent to the appeal. Corneroli hired Kutz to appeal the Probate Court’s decision. Probate Court dismissed the appeal as untimely. Corneroli sued Kutz for legal malpractice. Trial court granted Kutz’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Corneroli failed to present sufficient expert evidence to create a fact issue about causation. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) expert testimony was required on causation even though it went to the ultimate issue because the factfinder needed expert assistance; and (2) Corneroli’s expert’s testimony was inadequate to create a fact issue because he testified only that a favorable outcome for Corneroli was a possibility, not a probability.

Advance Release Opinions – July 5

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about administrative law, breach of contract, civil procedure, domestic relations, and mortgage foreclosure.

Administrative Law

Starble v. Inland Wetlands Commission – Over Starble’s objection, commission granted wetlands-permit application. Trial court affirmed. Appellate Court reversed, finding that (1) statutory and regulatory provisions requiring wetlands-permit applicant to prove absence of feasible and prudent alternative was mandatory, not directory, because the provisions were substantive, having been enacted to protect inland wetlands; and (2) since commission supported its decision with explicit findings, trial court was precluded from reviewing the record for evidence supporting anything other than those explicit findings.

Breach of Contract

DAB Three, LLC v. LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. – DAB Three sued five corporations and two individual insurance brokers for failing to obtain the correct coverage. Trial court dismissed as to LandAmerica Financial Group (“LFG”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because LFG had been discharged in a bankruptcy. Then, accepting the representation of one of the remaining defendants, Lawyers Title Environmental Insurance Service Agency, Inc. (“LTEISA”), that it was the only party that could be liable for a breach of a brokerage contract, trial court granted summary judgment for the other three remaining defendants. Next, accepting LTEISA’s lawyers’ representation that LTEISA did not exist because it had become defendant LandAmerica Environmental Insurance Service Agency, Inc. (“LEISA”) before the policy was issued, trial court granted the lawyers’ motion to withdraw their appearance. So, the case was to be tried only against LTEISA. But since LTEISA did not exist, DAB Three declined to go to trial, leading trial court to dismiss as to LTEISA, the last remaining defendant. Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal as to LFG, finding that although LFG’s bankruptcy discharge would not have protected LFG’s insurer from liability for LFG’s breach, DAB Three had never made any claim against any such insurer. Since LFG would have been responsible for the costs of defending DAB Three’s claims, they violated the bankruptcy discharge and deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellate Court reversed the summary judgment as to LEISA, finding that it could not stand in the face of defendants’ admission that LTEISA was really LEISA. In other words, the issue of fact that precluded summary judgment against LTEISA also precluded summary judgment against LEISA because they were one and the same.

Civil Procedure

Speer v. Department of Agriculture – Speer appealed commissioner’s order to euthanize Speer’s dogs. Trial court nonsuited Speer for failing to appear at a pretrial conference, though her counsel appeared, she was available telephone, and she actually spoke with trial court by telephone. Trial court then denied Speer’s verified motion to open and set aside the nonsuit in a one-sentence order finding that Practice Book § 14-13 required Speer to attend the pretrial. When Appellate Court ordered trial court to articulate its reasons for denying Speer’s motion, trial court said Speer had not complied with any of Practice Book § 17-43’s requirements. Appellate Court reversed, finding that Speer had complied with all of the requirements of Practice Book § 17-43 and CGS § 52-212, and that trial court abused its discretion in denying Speer’s motion. Appellate Court also noted, in a footnote, that trial court’s initial reliance on § 14-13 was misplaced because § 14-7 exempts administrative appeals from § 14-13’s pretrial rules.

Domestic Relations

Tala E.H. v. Syed I. – Trial court granted wife two-week, ex parte order of protection against husband, which the trial court continued for six months after a hearing on notice. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) the record did not disclose any bias or judicial misconduct; and (2) trial court did not make any clearly erroneous factual findings or abuse discretion.

Mortgage Foreclosure

Webster Bank v. Frasca – Trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for a deficiency judgment because plaintiff failed to establish the property’s fair market value by “credible and accurate evidence.” Appellate Court affirmed, finding no plain error in the trial court’s conclusions that (1) plaintiff’s appraisal was not credible; and (2) plaintiff failed to carry its preponderance-of-evidence burden as to value. Nor was there any plain error from alleged judicial bias, since the trial court’s comments about the substantial financial resources of defendant’s former father-in-law, and the trial court’s knowledge of real estate in the area where the property is located, though concerning, were not a manifestation of bias, but just unnecessary and unhelpful commentary. Appellate Court also confirmed that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting and considering the evidence, and in denying plaintiff’s motion for a protective order regarding plaintiff’s deposition.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lorson – The longstanding requirement in Connecticut that plaintiff must plead and prove compliance with conditions precedent contained in the note and mortgage does not apply to FHA/HUD conditions precedent referenced, but not explicitly contained, in the note and mortgage. Rather, borrower must affirmatively plead and prove failure of any such condition precedent. This passage from the opinion explains why: “There are potentially dozens of HUD requirements that a defendant could argue are necessary prerequisites to the bringing of a foreclosure action… It is inconsistent with our expectation that trials are not supposed to be a game of blindman’s bluff to expect a plaintiff in a foreclosure action to anticipate which HUD requirement a defendant will seize upon to argue after the plaintiff rests that it has failed to prove its case. Foreclosure trials, and motions for summary judgment in foreclosure actions, in which the facts are largely undisputed, would become drawn-out, expensive affairs as a plaintiff presents evidence regarding a lengthy list of requirements. Moreover, because plaintiffs typically are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees upon the entry of judgment, the parties truly harmed by imposing such requirements on foreclosing plaintiffs are the borrowers who will be required to pay the additional fees caused by such a procedure. Consequently, in this particular context, it makes much more sense to require the defendant to plead the specific requirements that have not been met and bear the burden of proving the plaintiff’s noncompliance with those requirements. Not only is this more logical and more fair to plaintiffs and the vast majority of defendants who have no interest in raising such issues, it also is consistent with the manner in which other states have addressed the issue and the guidance provided by HUD itself.” Oh, and Appellate Court also affirmed as to borrower’s other two arguments, equitable estoppel (alleged to have arisen when plaintiff added a condition to a forbearance agreement already in progress) and unclean hands (from plaintiff’s allegedly ignoring HUD requirements willfully and in bad faith).

 

Advance Release Opinions – Supreme Court – June 1, 8, 22 and 29

by

Reviews of Connecticut Supreme Court advance release opinions about civil procedure, election law, and worker’s compensation.

Civil Procedure

Samelko v. Kingstone Insurance Company – Kingstone is a New York insurance company that issued a business car insurance policy in New York covering a business located in New York and a vehicle garaged in New York. The coverage territory was the United States. Insured driver collided with the Samelkos in Connecticut. The Samelkos sued the insured. Kingstone declined to defend. Default judgment entered in the Samelkos’ favor, which Kingstone declined to pay. The Samelkos then exercised their subrogation rights and sued Kingstone. Trial court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Kingstone had no contacts with Connecticut and thus no notice that it might be sued in Connecticut. Supreme Court reversed, finding that because the policy had a nationwide coverage territory (1) the contract was “to be performed” in Connecticut under our corporate long arm statute; (2) it was foreseeable that Kingstone would have to perform in Connecticut, which provided the necessary minimum contacts with Connecticut; and (3) it was fair and reasonable to require Kingstone to defend itself in Connecticut.

Election Law

Arciniega v. Feliciano – Reversed. Candidate 1 lacked standing to attack validity of petition that led to Candidate 2’s inclusion on the ballot in a primary election because Candidate 1 was not aggrieved “by the ruling of an election official” as the statute required. Specifically, though Candidate 2’s address was wrong on the petition, there was no statute requiring an election official to reject a petition containing an inaccurate address. Since there was no rejection requirement, there was no “ruling” in accepting the petition with the inaccurate address. Since there had to be a ruling before there could be standing to complain about the ruling, there was no standing.

Cook-Littman v. Board of Selectman – Reversed. Town’s charter, not state statute, set procedure for filling a vacancy on the board of selectman because it is a matter of purely local concern.

Worker’s Compensation

Williams v. New Haven – Worker received benefits, returned to work, but was ultimately terminated for worker’s compensation fraud. Worker filed a grievance, which the parties arbitrated under the collective bargaining agreement. Worker lost both the arbitration and the motion in Superior Court to vacate the arbitration award. Meanwhile, worker filed a statutory wrongful discharge claim under CGS § 31-290a with the worker’s compensation commission. City moved to dismiss, arguing that since worker was pursuing a statutory wrongful termination claim before the worker’s compensation commission instead of a “court of competent jurisdiction” as required by CGS § 31-51bb and Genovese, the arbitration collaterally estopped the wrongful termination claim. Commissioner denied the motion. Review board affirmed. Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that (1) “court of competent jurisdiction” includes worker’s compensation commission for purposes of § 31-51bb and Genovese; (2) Superior Court motion to vacate the arbitration award did not satisfy § 31-51bb’s requirement of judicial review of statutory claim; and (3) § 31-51bb and Genovese allow the worker to pursue the same or a substantially similar claim after the adverse arbitration decision.

 

Advance Release Opinions – June 29

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about divorce, mortgage foreclosure, and worker’s compensation.

Divorce

Magsig v. Magsig – Trial court denied plaintiff’s contempt motion about compliance with an indemnity provision of the dissolution decree. Appellate Court affirmed, finding that (1) trial court considered defendant’s testimony about his understanding of indemnity provision solely on the wilfulness issue, not in interpreting provision; and (2) indemnity provision could not be interpreted to protect plaintiff against liability, as opposed to loss, because the liability was already extant at the time of the decree.

Mortgage Foreclosure

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Trustee v. Hallums – Per curiam opinion affirming that (1) plaintiff had standing because borrower did not rebut the presumption of ownership arising from plaintiff’s holder status; (2) borrower’s bankruptcy discharge did not preclude foreclosure of the mortgage; and (3) borrower’s claims about the best evidence rule and clean hands doctrine were “baseless.”

Jenzack Partners, LLC v. Stoneridge Associates, LLC – Jenzack took an assignment of a note that was guaranteed. The guaranty was secured by a mortgage on the guarantor’s home. Trial court entered a judgment of strict foreclosure as to guarantor’s home. Guarantor raised three arguments on appeal. First argument was that Jenzack lacked standing because the assignment did not specifically assign the guaranty. Appellate Court rejected this argument because assignment of the note automatically carried with it assignment of guaranty. Second argument was that document showing loan balance on date of assignment was inadmissible hearsay because it came from a document that assignor had given to Jenzack. Appellate Court agreed and reversed, finding that business records exception is for records made in the ordinary course of business, not records received in the ordinary course of business. Third argument was that Jenzack was not entitled to attorney’s fees because the attorney’s bills were addressed to a party other than Jenzack. Appellate Court rejected this argument because there was testimony that Jenzack had had problems receiving its mail, and the “someone else” was added to insure that it would receive the attorney’s bills.

Worker’s Compensation

Mickucka v. St. Lucian’s Residence, Inc. – Defendants had been paying plaintiff temporary total incapacity benefits. Defendants then filed a form 36, seeking to discontinue benefits because plaintiff had achieved maximum medical improvement. Commissioner approved the form 36 at an informal hearing. Plaintiff objected, and sent a notice of formal hearing about “Form 36/Discontinuation of Benefits.” At the formal hearing, plaintiff attempted to present evidence that plaintiff was entitled to benefits for a vocational total disability even if she had achieved maximum medical improvement, i.e., an Osterlund claim. Because that was not part of plantiff’s notice of hearing, commissioner precluded the evidence, but invited plaintiff to pursue an Osterlund claim in a separate, future hearing. Commissioner found that plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement and had work capacity. Without pursuing the Osterlund claim, plaintiff appealed to the board, arguing that the commissioner could not rule on the form 36 without considering whether plaintiff was still temporarily totally disabled. Board affirmed. On appeal to the Appellate Court, plaintiff claimed that she was denied due process when commissioner precluded her from presenting evidence of a lack of work capacity. Appellate Court rejected that claim, finding that commissioner precluded plaintiff from presenting Osterlund evidence when the form 36 was the only issue noticed; commissioner gave plaintiff opportunity to present he Osterlund evidence at a separate, future hearing. And, Appellate Court noted that allowing plaintiff to present Osterlund evidence at the form 36 hearing would have deprived defendants of due process because they were not given proper notice. Appellate Court rejected as unripe plaintiff’s claim that she was totally disabled because that would have been the issue in the Osterlund claim, which plaintiff had not pursued.

Advance Release Opinions – June 22

by

Reviews of Connecticut Appellate Court advance release opinions about administrative law, breach of contract, eviction, and mortgage foreclosure.

Administrative Law

Gianetti v. Dunsby – Town ordinance gave tax relief to the elderly who applied to the assessor and met certain criteria. Assessor denied Gianetti’s application, and Board of Selectman denied his appeal. Gianetti then sued selectman individually for improperly denying his application. Selectman moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because nothing authorized Gianetti to appeal the Board’s decision to the Superior Court. Trial court denied the motion. Appellate Court reversed, finding that Gianetti’s action was really an administrative appeal and there was no statute permitting him to appeal the matter to the Superior Court.

Breach of Contract

Emeritus Senior Living v. Lepore – Daughter signed a senior living agreement as her mother’s representative. The agreement made daughter and mother jointly liable for services. Emeritus sued daughter to collect payment for services rendered. Trial court found the agreement unconscionable and against public policy, and denied Emeritus any relief. Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the record did not support either of the trial court’s findings.

Eviction

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Farina – Farina claimed that Fannie Mae lacked standing to evict him because it never took title to the property in the underlying foreclosure. More specifically, Farina claimed that his appeal of the trial’s court’s denial of his third motion to open the foreclosure judgment invoked the appellate stay, rendering the law date ineffective, and Fannie Mae had never reset the law date after Appellate Court had dismissed his appeal as moot. Trial court agreed, and granted Farina’s motion to dismiss the eviction action. Appellate Court reversed, explaining that it had dismissed the prior appeal as moot because Farina had not complied with Practice Book § 61-11(g), which was necessary to invoke the appellate stay for an appeal of a third denial of a motion to open. Since Farina never petitioned for certification of that dismissal, it became a final judgment and was not subject to collateral attack in the eviction action.

Kargul v. Smith – Yawn. After serving notice to quit, Kargul started and then withdrew a summary process action. Kargul served a second notice to quit and started a second summary process action. The second action ended with a stipulated judgment, which Smith later violated. On Kargul’s application, trial court ordered that execution could issue immediately. Smith appealed, claiming that the first notice to quit terminated the tenancy, thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the second summary process action. Appellate Court affirmed because Kargul’s withdrawal of the first summary process action put the parties back to square one.

Mortgage Foreclosure

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee v. Fraboni – A late-filed appeal does not invoke, or revive, the appellate stay in a noncriminal case.