Anthony J. Armentano

The case concerned whether a Connecticut taxpayer engaged in the securities trading business could exclude dividend income from the state capital gains and dividends tax when that income was offset by federal business expense deductions for interest paid on loans used to acquire the securities, resulting in no net dividend income reported on the federal return. The court held that the dividends remained taxable under General Statutes § 12-506(a) at the full gross amount, without reduction for the federal deductions. It reasoned that the statutory phrase 'dividends taxable for federal income tax purposes' incorporates the federal definition of gross dividend income under the Internal Revenue Code but does not incorporate unrelated federal deductions or adjustments that reduce the amount actually taxed federally, particularly since the Connecticut statute refers to dividends rather than 'net' dividends and treats such income separately from business expenses. The court distinguished this from deductions directly tied to capital gains calculations and rejected the taxpayers' reliance on the reporting format on federal Schedule C.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a dispute between family members over ownership of residential property at 250 Kenyon Street in Hartford, Connecticut. The plaintiffs, who had lived in the home since 1966, claimed a beneficial interest via a resulting trust, alleging they effectively paid the purchase price through loans and mortgage arrangements while the defendants held title. The defendants, the plaintiffs' siblings, maintained that they acquired the property as an investment and to provide housing for the family, with any payments from the plaintiffs treated as rent. The trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, finding they failed to prove payment of the purchase price or the existence of a resulting trust. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the conclusion that no resulting trust arose because the defendants' acquisition was motivated by providing a family home and investment benefits rather than holding title for the plaintiffs.

propertyfamily law

The case addressed whether an auto insurer could obtain full reimbursement, without any deduction for attorneys' fees, of no-fault basic reparations benefits it had paid to insureds who later settled personal injury claims against third parties. The court ruled that the insurer was entitled to full reimbursement of the benefits paid and that no proportionate share of the clients' legal fees or costs needed to be deducted. It reasoned that the pre-1980 version of General Statutes § 38-325(b) already provided for reimbursement whenever a claimant 'recovers damages,' a phrase that encompassed settlements as well as judgments, and that the 1980 amendments expressly confirming settlements and adding a fee-sharing deduction were either clarifying or newly enacted and thus not retroactive to the events at issue.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a marital dissolution decree after the parties had reached and the trial court had orally approved an oral settlement agreement covering alimony, custody, child support, visitation, property division, and related matters. The trial court later modified the agreement in its written decree by changing the beneficiary of the defendant's annuity from the three children to the minor daughter only and by adding an order requiring the defendant to pay mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the family home until its sale. The appellate court held that once the trial court approved the fully integrated agreement after notice and a hearing, it was bound by its terms and could not unilaterally modify or augment them without providing the parties due process through proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court therefore found error in part, set aside the judgment, and directed that it be modified to restore the original annuity beneficiaries and limit the defendant's post-vacancy expense obligations to the period until he vacated the premises. The claim regarding appellate counsel fees was not properly before the court because the defendant failed to amend his appeal as required by court rules.

family lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a trial court's orders in a marital dissolution action after a 23-year marriage ended due to irretrievable breakdown. The trial court awarded the defendant wife custody of the parties' minor child and ordered the plaintiff husband to convey his interests in three jointly owned residential properties (including the family home and rental/investment properties) to her, in exchange for a $21,000 non-interest-bearing promissory note secured by a mortgage that would be reduced monthly to account for child support arrearages and ongoing obligations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its broad discretion under Connecticut statutes to equitably divide marital assets based on factors including the parties' contributions, conduct during the marriage, and financial needs, and that the custody determination was supported by evidence of the child's best interests without requiring a family relations report or explicit consideration of the child's wishes. The court distinguished property assignments from alimony but confirmed that such awards could address support obligations.

family lawproperty

The case concerned Jonathan Miller's conviction for assault in the first degree after he shot an unarmed former boyfriend of his girlfriend outside a Connecticut mall in 1977; Miller admitted the shooting but claimed it was accidental or justified by self-defense. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's jury instructions on the elements of self-defense and specific intent, as well as evidentiary rulings permitting impeachment via a prior felony conviction and cross-examination about prior gun ownership. The court ruled that the jury-instruction claims had not been properly preserved at trial through timely exceptions and did not meet the narrow criteria for exceptional appellate review of unpreserved constitutional issues, rendering them waived. It also addressed the evidentiary claims but found no reversible error in the trial court's handling of them. The conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved remote purchasers of a home who sued the developer, Lenox Homes, after the septic system failed shortly after they took possession, causing effluent to surface in their yard. The plaintiffs had previously lost contract and warranty claims due to lack of privity, but their negligence claim proceeded to trial. The trial court found that the defendant had designed and constructed the septic system, owed a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to meet regulatory and common-law standards, and caused the plaintiffs' harm, awarding $16,390 in damages for a replacement system. On appeal, the court addressed the defendant's challenges to these findings, confirming that evidence supported the defendant's role in construction, that a duty existed due to the foreseeable risks of an improperly designed system, and that breach and causation were established by expert testimony and regulatory violations. The opinion upheld the negligence recovery while noting procedural limits on certain defenses.

propertytorts & liability

This case concerned whether an inmate could obtain disclosure of his presentence investigation reports (PSIs) held by the Department of Correction under Connecticut's Personal Data Act. The trial court denied the request, concluding that Practice Book rules made PSIs non-public records beyond legislative reach. The Supreme Court first held that the action was not an administrative appeal requiring certification. On the merits, it ruled that PSIs constitute "personal data" maintained by a state agency and must be disclosed upon request unless a statutory exemption applies, because the Act's disclosure mandate overrides conflicting court rules. The court therefore reversed the denial of disclosure and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation of the statute.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal from a 1979 divorce decree dissolving a 23-year marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, awarding the husband custody of the two minor children along with the wife's half-interest in jointly owned residential and business real estate, and granting the wife a non-modifiable $13,000 alimony award payable over five years subject to termination upon death, remarriage, cohabitation, or hospitalization from resumed alcoholism. The defendant wife challenged the property division and alimony terms, arguing that the trial court misapplied the statutory criteria by prioritizing the parties' contributions to the estates over other factors, made unreasonable factual findings, and improperly penalized her for her past illness. The Supreme Court of Connecticut examined the requirements of General Statutes §§ 46b-81(c) and 46b-82, confirming that the statutes mandate consideration of multiple factors such as marriage length, age, health, income, needs, and contributions without assigning priority to any one, while noting that the trial court's emphasis on contributions could be viewed as an evidence-based analysis rather than a legal error.

family law

This case involved a dispute over child custody in a marriage dissolution proceeding. The trial court initially awarded custody to the plaintiff mother after a hearing, but later modified the award to the defendant father upon finding that the mother had removed the child from the state in violation of court orders. The court entered the final dissolution decree and custody order in July 1980 after the mother failed to appear. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that prior to the entry of the final dissolution decree, the trial court has broad discretion to modify custody orders based on the best interests of the child, and affirmed the judgment.

family law

In State v. Packard, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of burglary in the second degree and sexual assault in the first degree. The victim identified him through a composite sketch, photo array, voice lineup, a chance courthouse encounter, and in-court testimony. The defendant moved to suppress the voice identification, arguing it violated due process because the procedure was unnecessarily suggestive. Applying a two-pronged test, the court examined whether the voice procedure was unduly suggestive and, if so, whether the identification remained reliable based on the totality of the circumstances, including the victim's opportunity to observe and hear the assailant. The court upheld admission of the evidence and affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a head-on collision on a curved road in Meriden between vehicles driven by Salvatore Carabetta and Alejandro Alvarez, with Mark Tomczuk as a passenger in Alvarez's car. Tomczuk sued Alvarez and Carabetta for negligence; he settled with Carabetta and his employer for $90,000 via a covenant not to sue, then obtained a $150,000 verdict against Alvarez. In a related action, Carabetta sued Alvarez and his employer (Record), which counterclaimed for workers' compensation payments made to Alvarez. The trial court denied Alvarez's motion to set aside the verdict, and the appeals court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the jury's liability finding, the jury was properly instructed to deduct the settlement from damages, and the verdict was not excessive.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Bic Pen Corporation reorganized its central toolroom into three smaller departments and began distributing overtime within each new department rather than across all toolmakers. The union filed a grievance alleging that this violated the equal distribution requirement in Article IV(n) of the 1975 collective bargaining agreement; an arbitrator found a violation in the factory service toolroom and awarded back pay to affected employees. The company sought to vacate the award in superior court on grounds that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by addressing previously resolved or untimely claims, but the court confirmed the award. The appellate court affirmed, holding that judicial review is limited to whether the award conforms to the submission and that the arbitrator acted within the authority defined by the parties' agreement and evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved whether preprints—advertising supplements printed by Eastern Color Printing Company for Caldor, Inc. and inserted into newspapers—were exempt from Connecticut sales tax under General Statutes §§ 12-412(f) as "newspapers" or 12-412(r) as materials becoming component parts of tangible personal property to be sold. The tax commissioner assessed sales tax on the printer's charges to retailers, leading to appeals after the exemptions were denied. The court held that preprints do not qualify for either exemption, as they are separate advertising items at the time of printing and sale, not newspapers under the statute's plain and ordinary meaning, and the exemptions must be strictly construed. The sales were therefore subject to tax under § 12-408.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff who sued the City of New Haven for personal injuries from falling on a cracked and uneven public sidewalk, alleging the city's failure to maintain and repair it under General Statutes § 13a-149. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant after finding that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the trial court's finding of negligence was supported by evidence that the plaintiff knew of the defect yet failed to use the adjacent safe portion of the sidewalk, and that any error in findings about alcohol consumption was harmless. The decision emphasized the plaintiff's burden to prove due care and upheld the conclusion that the facts pointed at least as strongly to lack of care as to its presence.

torts & liability

In this marital dissolution action, the plaintiff wife sought a divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown after a 23-year marriage, while the defendant husband raised an affirmative defense that the marriage was invalid due to an allegedly defective prior divorce decree and counterclaimed for annulment based on alleged fraud regarding the wife's prior marital status and child. The trial court found the marriage valid, dissolved it on irretrievable breakdown grounds, and issued orders dividing property, awarding the wife periodic and lump-sum alimony, and granting counsel fees. On appeal, the court held that the husband lacked standing to collaterally attack the wife's prior District of Columbia divorce decree because he was a stranger to that proceeding with no protected interest at the time, and therefore affirmed the finding of a valid marriage under applicable D.C. law. The court also rejected the equal protection challenge to the alimony award, noting that Connecticut statutes authorize either spouse to pay alimony and allow modification based on changed circumstances.

family law

This case was a dispute over ownership of and rights to use a two-rod right-of-way lane on real property in East Lyme, Connecticut, bounded by the Boston Post Road and a cemetery. The plaintiffs sued to quiet title, claiming the lane was part of their land; the defendants asserted an interest in it for access to their adjacent property via a driveway. After trial, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, concluding they held fee simple title and the defendants had no use rights. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, finding the trial court's ownership determination supported by deed language and expert testimony on the chain of title, the defendants' concession that they claimed no ownership, and no error in the plaintiffs' decision not to join the town or state as parties.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the conviction of the defendant for third-degree burglary and first-degree larceny after a pharmacy was broken into and items including narcotics and a safe with cash were stolen. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for conviction, errors in denying motions for acquittal and to set aside the verdict, and improper jury instructions on circumstantial evidence. The court upheld the convictions, determining that the evidence, particularly the defendant's fingerprints on the narcotics cabinet and safe combined with lack of authorization to be in the area, was sufficient for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the trial court's instructions on circumstantial evidence and inferences were deemed correct and adequate when viewed as a whole.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the chairman of the Trumbull town council and town officials over which budget proposal was lawful for fiscal year 1978-79. The first selectman attempted to veto the budget adopted by the council and implemented an earlier proposal from the board of finance. The court ruled that the council's adopted budget was the lawful one and that the selectman lacked veto authority over it. The decision was based on a construction of the town charter, which outlines a specific budget formulation process in Chapter IV that does not include a veto power for the selectman, while distinguishing it from general legislative veto powers in Chapter II.

procedure