Joette Katz

In Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, a dentist sued the hospital for medical malpractice after a nurse's attempted intravenous line insertion allegedly caused anterior interosseous nerve palsy in his left hand, leading to ongoing impairment. The trial court excluded the plaintiff's expert from testifying about Parsonage Turner Syndrome as an alternative cause due to insufficient disclosure and allowed the defendant's expert to opine on that diagnosis without adequate proof of its reliability under a Porter hearing; the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's affirmance, holding that these evidentiary rulings constituted harmful error because the excluded testimony formed part of the plaintiff's expert's permitted causation opinion and left the jury with an incomplete view of that testimony, while the defendant's expert's methodology for diagnosing a rare condition lacked demonstrated reliability. The court distinguished prior precedent on harmlessness and clarified requirements for Porter hearings on record-based diagnoses.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

In Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut, the plaintiffs filed a petition seeking permission to appeal a decision issued by the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case reported at 120 Conn. App. 666. The Supreme Court of Connecticut denied the petition for certification to appeal. Justice Katz did not participate in the consideration or decision regarding the petition. As a result, the Appellate Court's ruling remains in effect without further review by the state's highest court.

procedure

In Skakel v. State, the petitioner, convicted in 2002 of the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley, filed a petition for a new trial under General Statutes § 52-270 based on alleged newly discovered evidence of third-party culpability, exculpatory facts, and impeachment material. The trial court denied the petition, finding the evidence either not newly discovered, not credible, or unlikely to produce a different result, and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the standards for newly discovered evidence under State v. Shabazz, concluding the petitioner failed to meet the prerequisites for relief. The decision emphasized the three-year limitations period under § 52-582 and the high bar for granting new trials in criminal cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Jackson, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Avon concerned a challenge to a decision by the town's planning and zoning commission, which had been reviewed by the Appellate Court. The plaintiffs filed a petition seeking certification to appeal that Appellate Court ruling to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification. Justice Katz did not participate in considering or deciding the petition, and no further reasoning was provided in the order.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a criminal prosecution in which the defendant challenged a jury instruction on the materiality of his deposition testimony. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's ruling. The review is limited to determining whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the defendant waived any challenge to that jury instruction. The court did not decide the merits of the waiver issue or the underlying conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute among the surviving partners of Brennan Associates, a real estate partnership formed to manage a shopping center, following the 2004 death of one founding partner whose estate sought to transfer his interest to family members. The plaintiff, another founding partner, sued for a declaratory judgment on the transfer's effects and for an injunction ensuring access to partnership records, while the other partners counterclaimed to expel him. The trial court granted the expulsion request under General Statutes § 34-355(5)(C) on grounds that the plaintiff's conduct made it not reasonably practicable to carry on the business, denied the injunction, and addressed related claims about the deceased partner's interest. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full, upholding the statutory expulsion and the handling of records access and valuation issues under the partnership agreement and applicable statutes.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Unistar Properties, LLC appealing the denial of its application for a wetlands permit by the town's conservation and inland wetlands commission, required for a proposed 34-lot subdivision on a 62-acre parcel containing vernal pools and other wetlands. The commission rejected the application as incomplete due to insufficient details on wildlife and plant species inventories, potential impacts, and alternatives. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the appeal, holding that the commission had statutory and regulatory authority to demand such information to assess effects on regulated areas, even without direct physical changes to the wetlands, and that the plaintiff had adequate opportunity during the hearing process to supply the missing data but did not.

environmentpropertyprocedure

In State of Connecticut v. Ryder, the defendant challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, which the Appellate Court had affirmed. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, but limited review solely to the question of whether the Appellate Court properly upheld the denial of the suppression motion. No further reasoning or merits analysis appears in the decision, which is a procedural grant of discretionary review in a criminal case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the resentencing of defendant John Tabone following a prior ruling that his original sentence of ten years imprisonment plus ten years special parole for convictions of sexual assault in the second degree, sexual assault in the third degree, and risk of injury to a child was illegal because it exceeded the statutory maximum under Connecticut law. On remand, the trial court substituted a ten-year term of probation for the special parole, maintaining the same total effective sentence of ten years incarceration followed by ten years of post-release supervision. The defendant appealed, claiming the new sentence violated due process by enlarging his punishment, infringed separation of powers through an alleged private agreement between the court and prosecutor, and breached double jeopardy protections. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, determining that the resentencing failed to comply with statutory requirements and constitutional limits on altering sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a petition by the plaintiffs to appeal a ruling from the Connecticut Appellate Court in their dispute with CR Gibson Company. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal. No further reasoning is provided in the decision, and Justice Katz did not participate.

procedure

This case involved a dispute between an insurance company and an independent insurance agency and its agents following the termination of their business agreements. The defendants filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the tort and CUTPA counts, applying the economic loss rule to bar tort recovery for what it viewed as contractual claims. The appellate court reversed, holding that because the summary judgment motion effectively challenged the legal sufficiency of the counterclaim, the defendants should have been permitted to replead before judgment was rendered.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Cristobal Millan, Jr., who was convicted after a jury trial of assault in the first degree and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree arising from a motel confrontation in which he slashed Jeffrey Smith with a work-issued knife during a fight between Millan's associate and Lamarr Sands. On appeal, the defendant claimed insufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction and that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of uncharged prior misconduct. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to prove an agreement and intent to assault Sands using the knife as a dangerous instrument and that the evidentiary ruling did not constitute harmful error.

criminal law

This case is a criminal prosecution in which defendant Jason J. Osimanti sought review of his conviction after the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's rulings. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, but limited review to two issues: whether the Appellate Court correctly upheld the trial court's exclusion of self-defense evidence and its jury instructions on self-defense, and whether the Appellate Court correctly found the trial court's inquiry into alleged jury bias to be adequate. The certification order contains no analysis of the merits and notes that Justice Katz did not participate. The underlying charges and trial outcome are not described in the excerpt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs Gianetti seeking further review of an Appellate Court decision in their dispute against Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court ruling reported at 111 Conn. App. 68. No reasons for the denial were stated in the order, and Justice Katz did not take part in considering or deciding the petition.

procedure

The case centers on a dispute between a plaintiff employee and a law firm defendant regarding whether a year-end bonus constitutes wages under Connecticut's wage payment statute, General Statutes § 31-71a. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff. The certification is limited specifically to the issue of whether the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the wage statute applied to the bonus. Justice Katz did not participate in the consideration or decision on the petition.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves appeals from Probate Court orders permitting conservators to secure a line of credit against a ward's residence and sell personal items to fund her care. The plaintiff, the ward's adult daughter, timely appealed both orders after the Probate Court allowed them, but the Superior Court dismissed the appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an incorrect return date (a Wednesday instead of a Tuesday) and related process defects under statutes governing civil actions. The reviewing court reversed, holding that such defects in the return date set by the Probate Court do not deprive the Superior Court of jurisdiction over a properly allowed probate appeal. The core reasoning was that probate appeals are not subject to the same mesne process requirements as ordinary civil suits, with jurisdiction attaching by operation of law upon allowance, and statutory provisions allowing amendment of defects in probate appeals further supported this conclusion.

procedurefamily law

This case concerns an appeal by C.R. Klewin, Inc. from an Appellate Court ruling in a dispute with The Travelers Indemnity Company and related parties. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, but limited review solely to the question of whether the Appellate Court properly dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment. The order was issued on November 5, 2008, with one justice not participating in the decision on the petition.

procedure

The case involved petitioner Eric Amado, who sought certification to appeal a ruling by the Connecticut Appellate Court in a matter against the Commissioner of Correction, referenced as 110 Conn. App. 345. The court denied the petition for certification. No further details on the underlying claims or issues were provided in the decision. Justice Katz did not participate in the consideration or ruling on the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Pond View, LLC's application to the Monroe Planning and Zoning Commission for a zone change from residential to commercial use to develop a shopping center, which the commission denied after a valid protest petition under General Statutes § 8-3(b) resulted in an insufficient vote. Environmental intervenors appealed the trial court's decision sustaining the plaintiff's appeal from that denial. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the intervenors lacked standing to appeal because their claims concerned procedural issues related to the protest petition and zone change vote rather than environmental matters permitted under General Statutes § 22a-19(a). The court reasoned that intervenors under § 22a-19 may only raise environmental issues, there was no sufficient nexus between the procedural claims and the pleaded environmental concerns, and allowing standing based on the protest petition would improperly expand beyond the limits of statutory aggrievement in zoning appeals under § 8-8.

environmentpropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Location Realty, Inc., a licensed real estate broker, seeking to recover commissions from defendants who acquired and developed commercial property after the original developer, Anthony Fonda, abandoned the project. The plaintiff had negotiated leases under a listing agreement with Fonda but lacked a written agreement or assignment with the defendants, and its president held only a salesperson license rather than a broker's license. The trial court awarded the plaintiff recovery on an unjust enrichment theory despite these issues. On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding that General Statutes §§ 20-312(b) and 20-325a bar recovery of real estate commissions unless their specific statutory conditions are met, and these provisions preclude common-law equitable claims like unjust enrichment when the requirements are unsatisfied.

business & regulatoryproperty