author: ESPINOSA, J.

text:
    ROBERT B. BARTON v. CITY OF NORWALK
    (AC 31113)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Espinosa and West, Js.

      Argued April 25
    officially released October 4, 2011

      Linda M. Guliuzza, assistant corporation counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Robert F. Maslan, Jr., corporation counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

      Elliott B. Pollack, with whom was Megan Youngling Carannante, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

ESPINOSA, J.

The defendant, the city of Norwalk, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Robert B. Barton. The defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs inverse condemnation action was not precluded by (1) the existence of a judgment in a related eminent domain proceeding, (2) the doctrine of res judicata and (3) the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We agree with the trial court that the motion for summary judgment was not supported by any of the theories advanced by the defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The relevant facts and procedural history of the case can be summarized as follows. The plaintiff owned property at 65 South Main Street and 70 South Main Street in Norwalk. The 65 South Main Street property served as a parking lot for the 70 South Main Street property. On February 26,2002, the defendant exercised its eminent domain authority over the property at 65 South Main Street. An action to determine the value of the condemned property followed. During the coruse of the action, the plaintiff twice attempted to amend his pleadings to reflect the loss in value of 70 South Main Street resulting from the taking of 65 South Main Street. In both instances, the defendant objected to the amendments. Ultimately, the court sustained the defendant’s objections and did not allow the amendments. After a trial to determine the value of 65 South Main Street, the corut, in its memorandum of decision dated January 27, 2009, ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the difference between the fair market value that the court calculated and the amount initially paid to the plaintiff, plus interest.

In addition to the previously described condemnation proceeding, the plaintiff simultaneously pursued the present inverse condemnation action regarding the property at 70 South Main Street. The plaintiff filed his complaint in this action on November 17, 2003, shortly after the court denied his second attempt to amend his pleadings in the eminent domain proceeding. The defendant moved for summary judgment in the inverse condemnation action on March 4, 2009. Because the eminent domain proceeding had concluded and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had received just compensation for the taking of 65 South Main Street and, therefore, could not pursue an inverse condemnation action. The court denied this motion on May 11, 2009, and the defendant appealed on May 27,2009. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [when] the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Our Supreme Court has explained that “[i]n deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Plato Associates, LLC v. Environmental Compliance Services, Inc., 298 Conn. 852, 862, 9 A.3d 698 (2010). Furthermore, “[t]he applicability of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, like the applicability of the closely related doctrine of res judicata, presents a question of law that we review de novo.” Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Groton, 262 Conn. 45, 57-58, 808 A.2d 1107 (2002). Therefore, we review all of the claims made by the defendant in support of summary judgment de novo.

I

The defendant first contends that summary judgment is appropriate because the plaintiffs inverse condemnation action is barred by the existence of a judgment in the related eminent domain proceeding. The defendant grounds this assertion in the concept of just compensation. According to the defendant, just compensation for the taking of 65 South Main Street was litigated adequately during the eminent domain proceeding. Any diminution in value of 70 South Main Street as a result of the taking of 65 South Main Street, the defendant argues, should have been litigated in the eminent domain proceeding because it merely reflects another aspect of just compensation for the taking of 65 South Main Street. The defendant, therefore, asserts that if the plaintiff felt that he had suffered damages that were not reflected in the judgment in the eminent domain proceeding, he should have appealed that decision— not pursued a separate action. We disagree.

In support of its argument, the defendant relies on Claud-Chambers v. West Haven, 79 Conn. App. 475, 830 A. 2d 385, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 924, 835 A. 2d 472 (2003). In that case, the plaintiffs initiated an inverse condemnation action relating to property once owned by them that had been taken by eminent domain. Id., 477. We affirmed the court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, noting that “[a]n inverse condemnation proceeding is a remedy to be used only when the governmental authority has not exercised its right to eminent domain.” Id., 478.

In coming to this conclusion, we relied on an earlier case from this court, Russo v. East Hartford, 4 Conn. App. 271, 493 A.2d 914 (1985). In Russo, the plaintiffs brought an inverse condemnation action after they unsuccessfully asserted in an earlier condemnation proceeding that the value they received for the condemned property did not amount to just compensation. Id., 273. On appeal, we held that the plaintiffs were barred from bringing the inverse condemnation claim, explaining that “[w]hat the plaintiffs seek in this case is what they already sought, unsuccessfully, in [the eminent domain proceeding].” Id.

The defendant’s reliance on Claud-Chambers and Russo is misplaced. In both of these cases, the eminent domain proceeding and the inverse condemnation action involved the same property. Unlike the plaintiffs in those cases, the plaintiff in the present case never initiated an eminent domain proceeding for 70 South Main Street because 70 South Main Street was not taken by eminent domain—only 65 South Main Street was. The plaintiffs inverse condemnation claim involves a different property than that which the defendant condemned through its eminent domain authority. This fact distinguishes this case from both Claud-Chambers and Russo.

Nevertheless, the defendant argues that the plaintiff is in effect seeking what he already sought in the eminent domain proceeding: just compensation for the taking of 65 South Main Street. In other words, the defendant asserts that any loss in value of 70 South Main Street is just another injury suffered as a result of the taking of 65 South Main Street, so the plaintiffs only opportunity for redress was in the eminent domain proceeding. We do not agree with this extension of Claud-Chambers and Russo. Those cases spoke to a different issue than is presented in this case. Specifically, those cases addressed whether a plaintiff can seek damages in an inverse condemnation action for property that has been condemned. As the present case involves an inverse condemnation action regarding property that has not been condemned, the defendant’s attempts to invoke Claud-Chambers and Russo are unavailing.

The defendant also argues that the plaintiffs inverse condemnation action violates the rule against double recovery. We are not persuaded. Our Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he rule precluding double recovery is a simple and time-honored maxim that [a] plaintiff may be compensated only once for his just damages for the same injury. . . . Double recovery is foreclosed by the rule that only one satisfaction may be obtained for a loss that is the subject of two or more judgments.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69, 111-12, 952 A.2d 1 (2008). As noted previously, however, the losses suffered by the plaintiff here are in fact two separate and distinct losses and were treated as such by the trial court. The court in the eminent domain proceeding did not consider, nor should it have considered, information about damages to 70 South Main Street that were irrelevant to 65 South Main Street. Given that the parallel proceedings clearly bifurcated the two issues, there is no violation of the rule against double recovery. Because the defendant has not demonstrated that the inverse condemnation action is barred by the existence of the judgment in the eminent domain proceeding, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is not proper on that ground.

II

The defendant next claims that summary judgment is appropriate because the plaintiffs inverse condemnation action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Specifically, the defendant argues that, because the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity in the eminent domain proceeding to litigate his claim regarding 70 South Main Street and the two proceedings involve the same claim, the inverse condemnation action is barred by res judicata. We are not persuaded.

The doctrine of res judicata provides that “a former judgment on a claim, if rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action [between the same parties] on the same claim. ... To determine whether two claims are the same for purposes of res judicata, we compare the pleadings and judgment in the first action with the complaint in the subsequent action. . . . The judicial [doctrine] of res judicata . . . [is] based on the public policy that a party should not be able to relitigate a matter which it already has had an opportunity to litigate.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 86 Conn. App. 42, 44-45, 859 A.2d 948 (2004). This court has previously distilled the following essential elements of res judicata from our case law: (1) the initial judgment was rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the identities of the parties to the actions are the same, (3) the parties had an adequate opportunity to litigate the matter fully and (4) the same claim, demand or cause of action is at issue. See Tirozzi v. Shelby Ins. Co., 50 Conn. App. 680, 686-87, 719 A.2d 62, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 945, 723 A.2d 323 (1998).

The first two elements are not in dispute. There is no suggestion by either party that the court did not render a judgment on the merits in the eminent domain proceeding or that the plaintiff and the defendant were not the parties in both the eminent domain proceeding and the inverse condemnation action.

The parties strongly disagree, however, on the two remaining issues: (1) whether the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to litigate the issues concerning 70 South Main Street in the eminent domain proceeding and (2) whether the inverse condemnation action involves the same claim, demand or cause of action as the eminent domain proceeding. We conclude that neither element is satisfied. Although the failure of a single element is sufficient to find that res judicata does not apply, we address both elements, in turn.

A

The defendant maintains that the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to litigate his claims regarding 70 South Main Street in the eminent domain proceeding. On the basis of the way the trial was conducted, the defendant argues that any evidence that the plaintiff wanted to submit regarding 70 South Main Street during the eminent domain proceeding was in fact admissible. Specifically, the defendant notes that during the eminent domain proceeding, one of the defendant’s witnesses opined that severance damages were not available for 70 South Main Street. In response to a question about the value of 65 South Main Street, the witness responded, “[i]n my opinion, if 65 South Main and 70 South Main were an economic single entity, there was a potential for severance damage to 70 South Main. Since they were not connected, there was no severance [damage] to 70 South Main.” The defendant asserts that because this witness testified while the plaintiff’s case was still open, evidence supporting the possibility of severance damages for 70 South Main Street could have been offered.

The defendant’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, we conclude that the plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to litigate his claim fully. The defendant overstates the significance of the fact that, as a matter of evidence, the plaintiff might have been able to argue that the defendant’s witness opened the door to a discussion of the value of 70 South Main Street. This is not the kind of “adequate opportunity” that our case law recognizes as being grounds for res judicata. Compare Lighthouse Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 300 Conn. 325, 351-52, 15 A.3d 601 (2011) (plaintiff had adequate opportunity where evidence presented in one action related to claims in another action about same underlying claim) and Tirozzi v. Shelby Ins. Co., supra, 50 Conn. App. 687 (plaintiff had adequate opportunity because he could have appealed under amended law that applied retroactively) with Connecticut National Bank v. Rytman, 241 Conn. 24, 49-52, 694 A.2d 1246 (1997) (plaintiff did not have adequate opportunity where lower court “would clearly have declined to exercise [jurisdiction] as a matter of discretion” [internal quotation marks omitted]). The plaintiff had no reason to pursue a line of questioning that did not have a bearing on the valuation of 65 South Main Street, the subject of the eminent domain proceeding.

The plaintiff had attempted to amend his pleadings to include claims for damages to 70 South Main Street resulting from the taking of 65 South Main Street. Because the defendant successfully objected to these amendments, the plaintiff did not have grounds to raise issues of damages to 70 South Main Street in the eminent domain proceeding. Although one of the defendant’s witnesses answered a question about 65 South Main Street by referencing 70 South Main Street, the trial had been framed expressly by the pleadings to be about the value of 65 South Main Street. This off-point response by the witness did not, therefore, in effect transform a proceeding related to the fair market value of 65 South Main Street into a proceeding also about the fair market value of 70 South Main Street. Because the eminent domain proceeding was clearly limited to 65 South Main Street and the witness’ comment did nothing to change that, we conclude that the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to litigate his inverse condemnation claim is unpersuasive.

B

Although our conclusion that the plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to litigate the matter fully is sufficient to dispose of the res judicata argument, we will also consider the defendant’s assertion that the inverse condemnation action involves the same claim, demand or cause of action as the eminent domain proceeding. The defendant’s assertion is straightforward: both proceedings were based on the taking of 65 South Main Street, and in both proceedings, the plaintiffs claim is for just compensation for that taking. We disagree.

In determining whether two actions involve the same claim, our Supreme Court has employed a transactional test. “[T]he claim [that is] extinguished [by the judgment in the first action] includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose. What factual grouping constitutes a ‘transaction,’ and what groupings constitute a ‘series,’ are to be determined pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co., 227 Conn. 175, 189-90, 629 A.2d 1116 (1993).

We conclude that under the transactional test, the eminent domain proceeding and the inverse condemnation action do not involve the same claim. Analyzing the facts of the case pragmatically, considering the incidental damage to 70 South Main Street in a trial with the express goal of determining the fair market value of 65 South Main Street would not conform to either party’s expectations. It is unlikely that the plaintiff, who unsuccessfully attempted to amend his pleadings to include a claim related to 70 South Main Street, would expect the eminent domain proceeding to resolve both issues. Additionally, the defendant did not expect the eminent domain proceeding to address any claim of damages to 70 South Main Street. In its objection to the plaintiffs initial motion to amend his pleadings, the defendant asserted that such an action would be “extremely prejudicial” to the defendant. The two injuries were clearly connected in space and time, but holding a trial for both would not be convenient as each property would require separate appraisals and different facts would be operative in the valuation process of each property. On balance, it is apparent that the two proceedings involved very different claims, the parties were aware of and relied on the distinct role of each proceeding, and the transactional test is not satisfied in this case. Therefore, we conclude that the defendant’s assertion that the inverse condemnation action involves the same claim, demand or cause of action as the eminent domain proceeding is without merit.

Ill

The defendant’s final contention is that summary judgment is appropriate because the plaintiffs inverse condemnation action is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The issue in the eminent domain proceeding, the defendant asserts, was the just compensation due to the plaintiff for the taking of 65 South Main Street. The defendant argues that because the highest and best use of 65 South Main Street was necessarily determined in the eminent domain proceeding, the issue of just compensation for the taking has already been litigated. Therefore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel, according to the defendant, precludes the plaintiff from making a claim for additional compensation in the form of an inverse condemnation action. This claim is also without merit.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel “prohibits the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action between the same parties or those in privity with them upon a different claim. ... An issue is actually litigated if it is properly raised in the pleadings or otherwise, submitted for determination, and in fact determined. ... An issue is necessarily determined if, in the absence of a determination of the issue, the judgment could not have been validly rendered.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Efthimiou v. Smith, 268 Conn. 499, 506-507, 846 A.2d 222 (2004).

Collateral estoppel does not apply here. The issue in the inverse condemnation action is what damage 70 South Main Street incurred as a result of losing the use of 65 South Main Street as a parking lot. This issue was not litigated in the eminent domain proceeding, as it was excluded from the pleadings after the defendant successfully objected to the plaintiffs attempt to amend his pleadings. Due to the defendant’s roadblock, the eminent domain proceeding was expressly limited to ascertaining the fair market value of 65 South Main Street. Accordingly, the defendant has not demonstrated that the inverse condemnation action is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and, therefore, summary judgment in favor of the defendant on that ground is not proper.

In conclusion, because the defendant has failed to demonstrate that summary judgment is required by (1) the existence of a judgment in the related eminent domain proceeding, (2) the doctrine of res judicata or (3) the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the court was correct to deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       For the sake of consistency, we will use the terms “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel” as opposed to “claim preclusion” and “issue preclusion.”

       “[A] regulatory taking—also known as inverse condemnation—occurs when the purpose of government regulation and its economic effect on the property owner render the regulation substantially equivalent to an eminent domain proceeding and, therefore, require the government to pay compensation to the property owner. Southview Associates, Ltd. v. Bongartz, 980 F.2d 84, 93 n.3 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 987, 113 S. Ct. 1586, 123 L. Ed. 2d 153 (1993); see First English Evangelical Lutheran Church
        v. Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315, 107 S. Ct. 2378, 96 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1987) (landowner entitled to bring action in inverse condemnation as result of self-executing character of takings clause). . . . Cohen v. Hartford, 244 Conn. 206, 220, 710 A.2d 746 (1998).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Miller v. Westport, 268 Conn. 207, 209 n.2, 842 A.2d 558 (2004).

       A denial of a motion for summary judgment is typically not appealable. See Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn. App. 228, 232, 4 A.3d 851 (2010) (“[u]nder Connecticut law, [t]he denial of a motion for summary judgment ordinarily is an interlocutory ruling and, accordingly, not a final judgment for purposes of appeal” [internal quotation marks omitted]). If the denial of summary judgment is predicated on res judicata or collateral estoppel, however, it is considered a final judgment and may be appealed. See Santorso v. Bristol Hospital, 127 Corm. App. 606, 607 n.l, 15 A.3d 1131 (“the denial of a motion for summary judgment predicated on the doctrine of res judicata is a final judgment for purposes of appeal”), cert. granted on other grounds, 301 Conn. 918, 21 A.3d 464 (2011); Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, supra, 232 (“[a] judgment denying [a] claim of collateral estoppel is a final judgment” [internal quotation marks omitted]). As the motion for summary judgment in the present case was predicated on both a claim of res judicata and a claim of collateral estoppel, its denial is a final judgment and may be appealed.

       In a hearing during the early stages of the eminent domain proceeding, the court discussed the inverse condemnation action:
      “The Court: I have another part in the case, Barton v. Norwalk. It is returnable November 25,2003. It’s docket number FST-CV-03-0197963-S. I’m calling it the sixty-three file [and the] case in court is the fifty-four file. [The sixty-three] case is the one that contained a motion to consolidate with the fifty-four case, [which was] denied by [the court, Hon. Edward R. Karazin, Jr., judge trial referee]. There had been a motion to reargue that matter and there may have been other matters related to consolidation in that particular case. But that file is here. I have the entirety of the file because it’s here. In the case I brought that up and just quickly reviewed it. I do not know whether that has any reference to this file or any need for this to be heard at the time of trial in this case.

        “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Your Honor, that case is scheduled for trial the first week of June next year. And it has no bearing, in my opinion, on the issues in this case.
      “The Court: Okay. Is it fairly classified as an inverse condemnation case?
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Yes, Your Honor.
      “The Court: Counsel, you agree with that?
      “[The Defendant’s Counsel]: That’s how I’ve been loosely referring to it, Your Honor, yes. It’s an inverse condemnation matter that arises in a very unusual circumstance.
      “The Court: Okay. Okay. The sixty-three case, if it contains any documents whatsoever that are of assistance in this case, even though the case itself may not be an issue, please make sure that you have the necessary copies of that portion of the file so that I can take a look at it.”

       The relevant exchange between the witness, Norman R. Benedict, and the plaintiffs counsel went as follows:
      “Q. You indicate an opinion there in the last sentence of the fifth paragraph that the appraised property—and I assume you’re talking about 65 South Main Street there, Mr. Benedict. Correct? Correct? You have to answer audibly.
      “A. Yes.
      “Q. Thank you. Is not connected to 70 [South] Main Street.
      “A. Yes.
      “Q. What bearing does that observation, that conclusion, and the text immediately preceding it have on the value of the property at 65 South Main Street, sir?
      “A. In my opinion, if 65 South Main and 70 South Main were an economic single entity, there was a potential for severance damage to 70 South Main. Since they were not connected there was no severance [damage] to 70 South Main.
      “Q. Well, you were asked to appraise 65 South Main Street, correct?
      “A. Yes.
      “Q. And only 65 South Main Street.
      “A. Nobody told me only.
      “Q. I see.
      “A. It’s my job as an appraiser, if I come up with something in the course of executing the appraisal which my client needs to know and may not already know, then it’s my obligation to tell them.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: LAVINE, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ROBERT H. FURBUSH
    (AC 29471)
    (AC 31505)
    Lavine, Beach and McDonald, Js.

      Argued April 13
    officially released October 4, 2011

      Benjamin B. Adams, with whom, on the brief, was Hubert J. Santos, for the appellant (defendant).

      Denise B. Smoker, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Matthew C. Gedansky, state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

LAVINE, J.

The defendant, Robert H. Furbush, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a trial to the court, of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a-56b, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1) and operating a motor vehicle while having an elevated blood alcohol content in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) he is entitled to a new trial because the court did not provide him with a complete transcript of his trial for appellate review, (2) the court infringed on his constitutional right to counsel when it ordered his trial counsel to turn over copies of their trial notes in an effort to reconstruct missing transcript pages, (3) the court improperly denied his motion to exclude the testimony of the state’s expert witnesses and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle. The defendant also appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial. We disagree with the defendant, and, accordingly affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The following facts, which the trial court reasonably could have found, are relevant to the defendant’s appeals. On September 2, 2003, the defendant visited a bar in Hebron. Over the course of his visit, the defendant became intoxicated from consuming alcoholic beverages and noticeably was slurring his words, stumbling around the bar and teetering on his bar stool. At one point, the defendant yelled out, “I need a line,” which the bartender understood to mean that he wanted drugs. The bartender asked the defendant to leave, and two bar patrons, Jerry L. Patch and Paul Mahoney, assisted the defendant as he walked out to the parking lot. Patch and Mahoney asked the defendant for the keys to his truck and attempted to convince the defendant that they should drive him home. The defendant told Patch to “go f[uck] yourself. I can drive myself home.”

The defendant “fell into [his] truck” as Patch and Mahoney attempted to find his keys. They told the defendant that they wanted to drive him home so he did not hurt anyone. The defendant still refused their assistance, and Patch and Mahoney became concerned for their own safety because the defendant was becoming violent. They eventually abandoned their plans to convince the defendant that he should not drive home and, just prior to 10 p.m., the defendant left the bar in his pickup truck.

On his way home from the bar, the defendant was traveling southbound on Route 85 in Hebron when his vehicle collided with the front driver’s side of the vehicle driven by George Koch in the northbound lane of Route 85. Koch was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident, and the defendant was removed from his truck and taken to a hospital. The firefighter who assisted with the removal of the defendant from his truck noticed a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant. The defendant’s blood alcohol level was later tested at 0.248 while he was at the hospital.

The defendant was charged with manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle and two counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. He elected a trial to the court. During the trial, the state presented the testimony of two accident reconstructionists, Michael Mathieu and James Foley, to explain how the collision between the defendant’s truck and Koch’s vehicle had occurred. Both experts testified that the defendant’s truck had crossed the center yellow fine of Route 85 and struck Koch’s vehicle in the northbound travel lane. They also testified that, pursuant to the principles of dynamics and the law of motion, the collision could not have occurred in the southbound lane. Mathieu and Foley also relied on a gouge mark that was in the northbound lane of the road, which they concluded had been made by the rim of the front driver’s side tire of Koch’s vehicle when the defendant’s truck drove over the front fender of Koch’s vehicle.

The defendant called his own expert, Richard Montefusco, to testify that Mathieu and Foley deviated from the standard protocols and commonly accepted techniques in their field. Montefusco also testified that the gouge mark relied on by Mathieu and Foley could not be a gouge mark and instead concluded that it was a scrape mark caused by Koch’s vehicle. Finally, Montefusco testified that his conclusions were based on an assumption that the two vehicles were traveling at forty miles per hour at the time of collision.

On September 25,2007, the court found the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle and two counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. As to the two counts of operating a motor vehicle under the influence, the court concluded that “[t]here was evidence that the defendant was drinking . . . perhaps from the afternoon, certainly in the evening of September 2,2003, and drinking excessively. When he was found in the car after the accident . . . there was a smell of alcohol that the trooper noticed. His eyes were bloodshot. . . . His behavior was belligerent and consistent with that of a person under the influence. He did admit to drinking. There were beer cans strewn all over the scene. That’s more than sufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he was under the influence. . . . I’m convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was greater than 0.08 at the time of operation . . . .”

The court then explained its reasoning for finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle. It stated that “the gouge mark in the road was the key piece of evidence. . . . Once you conclude that the gouge mark was made by the inside of the left wheel rim of [Koch’s vehicle], the rest of the evidence falls in place. The gouge mark was roughly in the center of the northbound lane several feet from where the yellow line would be if it continued in that area. And for the left front wheel of Mr. Koch’s vehicle to make that tire mark, it had to be in its proper lane. And for the defendant’s vehicle to collide with the left front of [Koch’s] vehicle at that point, the defendant’s vehicle had to be in the northbound lane, which was improper. . . .

“In addition to the physical evidence at the scene, the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication at the time makes it much more likely that the defendant was not driving in the proper lane. . . . Basically, at that very high level of intoxication, you are not driving the car; the car is driving you. So, I believe that alcohol is a supporting reason for the conclusion that the defendant was in the improper lane. It is also an explanation for why he was in the improper lane. He was in the improper lane ... as a consequence of the effect of alcohol.”

Finally, the court stated that it considered Montefusco’s testimony but did not find his expert opinions to be persuasive. Specifically, the court concluded that Montefusco’s opinions were based on an assumption that the two vehicles were traveling approximately forty miles per hour at the time of the collision, yet there was no evidence that this was their actual speed.

The court sentenced the defendant to an effective term of ten years imprisonment, suspended after nine years, and four years of probation. These appeals followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The defendant first claims that the court improperly denied his motion for a new trial. Specifically, the defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because “only a verbatim account of the questions, answers and arguments concerning the introduction of expert testimony [on September 12, 2007] can effectively” preserve his issues on appeal. We disagree.

The following additional facts are relevant to our resolution of the defendant’s claim. On December 10, 2007, the defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction. On July 29, 2008, the office of the official court reporter for the judicial district of Tolland sent the defendant a letter notifying him that there was no audio recording of the proceedings on September 12, 2007, and, therefore, the office could not produce a transcript for that date.

On August 7, 2008, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial and for rectification, arguing that the missing transcript pages would deny him the right to a meaningful appeal. Before ruling on the defendant’s motions, the court first attempted to reconstruct the missing transcript from September 12, 2007, by ordering the state police to examine any computer that might have a recording of that day’s testimony and also ordered both parties to preserve their notes of the testimony. The court also told the parties that it was able to produce a thirty-nine page printout of the court reporter’s notes from September 12, 2007.

On December 22, 2009, the court suggested that the defendant and the state combine their notes from September 12, 2007, with the court reporter’s notes to attempt to put together a transcript. The defendant requested, instead, that the state unilaterally prepare a transcript, giving the defendant an opportunity to review it when it was complete.

The state reconstructed the transcript by utilizing the court reporter’s shorthand notes, computerized shorthand notes, its own notes, the defendant’s notes, the clerk’s log book and the exhibits. On July 23, 2009, the court granted the defendant’s motion for rectification, stating that it was “rectifying the record by accepting the proposed transcript [submitted by the state] with the modifications as the transcript of the proceedings [from September 12, 2007].” The defendant objected to the use of the reconstructed transcript because on September 12, 2007, both experts for the state testified, and it was “technically dense material that was gone over by both experts, and . . . there were several portions of the reconstructed transcript that highlighted just how difficult it was to say exactly what it was that [the experts] were saying about their conclusions.” The defendant, therefore, requested that he be given a new trial to correct this deficiency in the record.

The court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial. The court noted that it “spent many hours comparing the proposed transcript submitted by the state with the underlying sources and [was] confident that it is faithful to them,” and that “the lack of the transcript alone is insufficient to establish an inadequately reconstructed record . . . .” The court also responded to the defendant’s concerns about the expert testimony by Mathieu and Foley, stating that “it’s also relevant . . . that defense counsel on appeal is the same as trial counsel. And, I think, as the state was also saying . . . that this day’s proceeding adequately preserves whatever arguments the defendant wishes to raise on appeal. Granted, the proposed transcript is not a 100 percent verbatim recording of the day’s proceedings, but I think it preserves all of the defendant’s objections, the court’s rulings, and the critical parts of the witnesses’ testimony .... Issues such as qualifications of the witnesses are either adequately preserved by this testimony or fully preserved by the previous day’s testimony of Mr. Mathieu. Issues such as the basis of the witness’ opinion as to the cause of the gouge mark . . . are also fully preserved by the previous day’s testimony or adequately preserved by the reconstructed transcript . . . .”

The defendant now claims that because his appeal is solely based on the evidence presented by the state’s experts, the court improperly denied his motion for a new trial. The defendant claims that he is not looking for a per se rule that a new trial is required in every case where a complete transcript is not provided. He argues, instead, that a new trial is required in this case because the issues presented on appeal are entirely dependent on the reconstructed transcript pages.

“The absence of a portion of the trial transcript does not mandate a new trial. A new trial is required only if the proceedings cannot be sufficiently reconstructed to allow effective appellate review of the claims raised by the defendant. . . . [T]he state is not required to furnish a complete verbatim transcript. . . . Possible substitutes include [a] statement of facts agreed to by both sides, [or] a full narrative statement based perhaps on the trial judge’s minutes taken during trial or on the court reporter’s untranscribed notes . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, 227 Conn. 101, 105-106, 629 A.2d 402 (1993).

“The sufficiency of a transcript to enable the appellate courts to review the issues on appeal is a matter of fact, because the trial court is in the best position to determine whether the reconstructed record adequately reflects what occurred at the trial. An appellate court should affirm a trial court’s finding that the reconstructed record was sufficient unless the appellate court finds that the trial court’s determination was ‘clearly erroneous.’ ... In determining whether a reconstructed record is sufficient, the trial court considers various factors, including the nature of the case, the claim of error advanced by the defendant, the availability of witnesses and exhibits from the original trial, the length of time that has passed, the length of the missing portion of the record and whether the defendant is represented by different counsel on appeal.” (Citation omitted.) Id., 106.

The defendant’s claims on appeal relating to the testimony of the state’s expert witnesses are (1) that the court improperly denied his motion to exclude the testimony of the expert witnesses and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle. We conclude that the record before us, which includes the reconstructed transcript from September 12, 2007, is sufficient to “allow effective appellate review of the claims raised by the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 105.

In addition to testifying on September 12, 2007, Mathieu also testified on September 11, 2007, and Foley also testified on September 14, 2007, meaning that their testimony was not entirely lost. On September 11, 2007, Mathieu testified as to his training and experience in accident reconstruction, the evidence and methods he relied on to reach the conclusion that the defendant’s truck crossed the yellow line on Route 85 and how certain marks in the road were created by the two vehicles. On September 14, 2007, Foley testified concerning the methods he relied on to conclude that the collision occurred in the northbound lane and could not have occurred in the southbound lane and what, in his opinion, caused the gouge mark in the northbound lane. Also, Mathieu’s expert report was in evidence as an exhibit, thereby preserving some of his findings and conclusions. Concerning the testimony that was lost, as noted by the court, the reconstructed transcript is sufficient to address the issues of Mathieu’s and Foley’s qualifications and their opinions concerning the cause of the gouge mark.

We also note that the transcript for September 12, 2007, was reconstructed from various sources rather than strictly from memory or any other unreliable source. The state utilized the court reporter’s shorthand notes, computerized shorthand notes, its own notes, the defendant’s notes, the clerk’s log book and the exhibits. The process of reconstruction took approximately fifty hours to complete and resulted in a transcript of seventy-one pages. Finally, the defendant’s appellate counsel also represented the defendant during trial.

The defendant argues that United States v. Workcuff, 422 F.2d 700 (D.C. Cir. 1970), should guide our decision on this claim because none of the cases in Connecticut address reconstruction of the record when the missing portions of the record directly relate to the issues raised on appeal. We conclude, however, that Workcuff is not helpful to our resolution of the defendant’s claim because it is factually distinct from the case before us in significant ways.

In Workcuff, the court charged the jury with additional instructions without a court reporter present. Id., 701. Neither the government nor the defendant’s counsel had any recollection of the contents of the additional instruction, and neither could state with assurance whether defense counsel made any objection to it. Id. The only written evidence of the instruction were notes taken by the government which were “apparently taken in an arcane, highly personalized form of shorthand, and consisted] primarily of illegible scrawls.” Id. The court reversed the defendant’s conviction, concluding that “[i]t is difficult enough in normal circumstances to appraise the propriety of the trial court’s various actions on the basis of a cold printed record; when that record is replaced by the incomplete hearsay recollections of one of the parties, our review is turned into an exercise in creative imagination.” Id., 702. The court also noted that the problems associated with the incomplete record were greatly exacerbated because the attorney representing the defendant was different from the counsel who represented him at trial. Id.

In the present case, the state reconstructed the record from several sources, including notes created by the court reporter, defense counsel and the exhibits in evidence, rather than from the “incomplete hearsay recollections of one of the parties . . . .” Id. Additionally, the defendant’s appellate counsel also served as his counsel during trial.

We conclude that it was not clearly erroneous for the court to conclude that the reconstructed record was sufficient to allow for effective appellate review of the claims raised by the defendant. Accordingly, the court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

II

The defendant next claims that the court infringed upon his constitutional right to counsel when it ordered defense counsel to turn over copies of their notes in an effort to reconstruct the missing transcript from September 12, 2007. While we appreciate that defense counsel understandably objects to any ruling that might disrupt their confidential relationship with a client, we conclude that no such disruption occurred in this case. Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s claim.

The following additional facts are relevant to the defendant’s second claim. On October 22,2008, the state suggested to the court that the missing transcript from September 12, 2007, could be reconstructed from, among other things, notes from the attorneys representing the two parties. Defense counsel objected to any order requiring them to turn over their notes. The court ordered both parties to preserve their notes and asked defense counsel to show cause or file a protective order concerning their claim that they should not be obligated to produce their trial notes.

On November 6, 2008, the defendant filed a motion for a protective order, arguing that the disclosure of defense counsels’ notes would deny him his constitutional right to counsel and violate the attorney work product doctrine and defense counsels’ ethical obligations. On December 22,2008, the court denied the defendant’s motion. The court concluded that “no one here is seeking any editorial comments or notes of communication with the client. . . . [W]hat I do think is appropriate for the defendant to turn over are his notes of the testimony, which was heard in court, was essentially information available to the public. . . . [D]efense counsels’ notes of the testimony really involves very minimal attorney work in the sense that there are no real mental impressions. It’s essentially a clerical task that is being performed. . . .

“I would also add that there are no readily available substitutes or at least no easy way of reconstructing this transcript without the notes of counsel and the court reporter who were in court . . . and, finally, I think this is for the defendant’s benefit. It’s an attempt to re-create the record so that the defendant can make a meaningful appeal, and so that factors into the work product decision. . . . I’m going to order that defense counsel type up in good faith [their] notes and turn those over to the court and to the state . . . .”

The defendant first claims that “the trial court’s order that [he] turn over trial counsel’s notes effectively compelled him to participate in the reconstruction of the record, and as such, significantly interfered with his right to counsel under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the federal constitution . . . .” He further argues that the “right to the effective assistance of counsel extends through the first appeal [and] requires that defense counsel both hold the state to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and not perform deficiently so as to prejudice the defense. . . . Thus, defense counsel should not be forced into the untenable position of either agreeing to a stipulation of facts that may minimize the state’s burden of providing a complete record, or to providing trial notes that work to his detriment by inaccurately reconstructing the proceeding.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

We find the defendant’s argument unpersuasive and conclude that the court’s order requiring defense counsel to provide the state and the court with copies of their trial notes from September 12,2007, did not violate the defendant’s right to counsel. First, the defendant was not “forced” to accept the reconstructed transcript as fact. The court simply ordered the parties to submit not their actual notes, but an edited, typed summary of their notes concerning the actual testimony from September 12, 2007, with any comments concerning their impressions or strategy redacted. The defendant objected to the state’s reconstructed transcript on July 23, 2009, and has appealed from the court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. The defendant’s course of conduct indicates that he did not construe the court’s order as forcing him to accept the reconstructed transcript as part of the record. The defendant also has not pointed to anything in the record that suggests that the court was, in fact, forcing him to accept the transcript.

Second, we do not believe that by supplying an edited and typed summary of their notes from September 12, 2007, defense counsel was prejudicing the defendant by inaccurately reconstructing the proceeding. The court’s order requiring that defense counsel provide a summary of their notes to the state benefited the defendant because it provided for a more accurate and fair reconstruction of the record that the defendant could utilize on appeal. Furthermore, we already have concluded that the reconstructed record is adequate for the review of the claims raised by the defendant. See part I of this opinion. The defendant, therefore, has not suffered any actual prejudice from defense counsels’ compliance with the court order.

The defendant argues alternatively that his sixth amendment rights were violated because the court order was in violation of the attorney work product doctrine. The defendant cites a Superior Court case, State v. Weber, 49 Conn. Sup. 530, 896 A.2d 153 (2004), for the proposition that the work product doctrine should have prohibited disclosure of the notes because “disclosure would likely cause prejudice or injury to the ongoing relationship between the defendant and his counsel, thereby diminishing his sixth amendment right . . . .”

We conclude that Weber is not helpful to the defendant’s claim because that case involved the application of the attorney work product doctrine during pretrial discovery and does not stand for the proposition that the attorney work product doctrine applies when the court is attempting to reconstruct the record after trial. Additionally, the defendant has not explained how disclosing his edited notes would actually prejudice or injure his ongoing relationship with defense counsel.

We do not, and would not, sanction any action of a trial court that would interfere with the relationship between attorney and client. But given the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that no such interference occurred. Counsel was not required to provide evidence or information to his client’s detriment, or anything inculpatory—merely summaries of redacted notes of testimony given in open court to assist the court in re-creating the record. We conclude, therefore, that the court did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel and that the court properly ordered the defendant to turn over defense counsels’ edited, typed trial notes pertaining to the testimony given on September 12, 2007.

Ill

The defendant’s third claim is that the court improperly denied his motion to exclude the opinion testimony of Mathieu and Foley. Specifically, the defendant claims that the methodology underlying Mathieu’s and Foley’s expert opinions was “exposed” to be unreliable, and, therefore, should have been excluded from evidence. We disagree and conclude that the court properly admitted Mathieu’s and Foley’s expert testimony.

The following additional facts are relevant to the defendant’s claim. On September 10, 2007, the defendant filed a motion in limine requesting that the court exclude “any and all of the accident reconstruction evidence that the defendant expects the state to offer in its case in chief.” The defendant further claimed that the state would be unable to establish the scientific validity of the methodologies utilized by the state’s reconstructionists under State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 61-92, 698 A.2d 739 (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058, 118 S. Ct. 1384, 140 L. Ed. 2d 645 (1998), Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), or Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999). The court decided that it would hear the testimony of the state’s experts during the course of the trial but allow the defendant to file a motion to strike their testimony at the close of the state’s case.

Mathieu and Foley testified at trial, and at the close of the state’s case-in-chief the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. In support of the defendant’s motion, defense counsel argued: “[Y]ou might recall that we had indicated that we would raise a Porter claim and a [Kumho Tire Co., Ltd.] claim [as] to the accident reconstructionists when . . . the state rested, and I’m doing that .... [Wjhat we’re focusing on ... is the method; not that accident reconstruction is not an accepted technique, either scientific or otherwise, but the method that was used here by the accident reconstructionists in not determining speed of the vehicles either pre- or post- . . . collision . . . .” The court denied the defendant’s motion, concluding that the “two experts testifying for the state have testified in their opinion that the defendant’s car was on the wrong side of the yellow line. . . . There’s been no showing at all that these opinions are not admissible under [Kumho Tire Co., Ltd.] or Porter . . . .”

After the defendant’s ease-in-chief, the defendant again moved for a judgment of acquittal and to strike Mathieu’s and Foley’s testimony. The defendant maintained his claim that “pursuant to Porter and Daubert and [Kumho Tire Co., Ltd.], the methods that were used by the [state’s] reconstructionists are scientifically unreliable or unreliable in a nonscientific sense in that they never calculated speed . . . .” The state argued in opposition that Porter did not apply to Mathieu’s and Foley’s testimony because “[t]he subject of the testimony by the two experts ... is no[t] new, novel science. In fact, all three experts in this area [including the defendant’s expert] all stated that it was all based on physics that had been put forth centuries ago.”

The court again denied the defendant’s motion to strike the testimony, concluding that the state’s experts testified that they relied on generally accepted principles of accident reconstruction and did so based on principles and theories that have been in the recognized literature and taught at training schools for decades. This, the court concluded, was sufficient to establish that their testimony was reliable and that no Porter hearing was required. The court added that the defendant’s expert, Montefusco, used methods similar to those used by the state’s experts, except that he also considered the speed of the vehicles at the time of impact. The court, however, noted that Montefusco made an assumption about the speed of the vehicles and did not actually calculate the speed.

The defendant claims on appeal that the court improperly denied his motion to strike the testimony of the state’s expert witnesses because their opinions were not scientifically valid. See State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 57. In Porter, our Supreme Court concluded that the standard established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., supra, 509 U.S. 579, should govern the admissibility of scientific evidence in Connecticut. State v. Porter, supra, 68. Under the Daubert standard, the determination of whether scientific evidence is admissible “entails a two part inquiry: whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the [scientific theory or technique in question] is scientifically valid and . . . whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. ... In other words, before it may be admitted, the trial judge must find that the proffered scientific evidence is both reliable and relevant.

“More specifically, the first requirement for scientific evidence to be admissible ... is that the subject of the testimony must be scientifically valid, meaning that it is scientific knowledge rooted in the methods and procedures of science . . . and is more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation. . . . This requirement establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability ... as, [i]n a case involving scientific evidence, evidentiary reliability will be based upon scientific validity. . . . The second condition that scientific evidence must satisfy in order to be admissible ... is that it must fit the case in which it is presented. ... In other words, proposed scientific testimony must be demonstrably relevant to the facts of the particular case in which it is offered, and not simply be valid in the abstract.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 64-65.

The Porter court noted, however, that “some scientific principles have become so well established that an explicit Daubert analysis is not necessary for admission of evidence thereunder. . . . We do acknowledge ... as did the Supreme Court in Daubert, that a very few scientific principles are so firmly established as to have attained the status of scientific law, such as the laws of thermodynamics, [and that such principles] properly are subject to judicial notice .... Evidence derived from such principles would clearly withstand a Daubert analysis, and thus may be admitted simply on a showing of relevance. For example, the Supreme Court of Montana recently noted that a Daubert analysis would not be necessary for ordinary fingerprint identification evidence to be admissible.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 85 n.30.

Additionally, our Supreme Court later stated that “[although this court in Porter explicitly adopted the Daubert test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence ... we did not explicitly overrule Connecticut precedent regarding the evidence to which such a test should apply. Prior to Porter, this court had recognized that the Frye [v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)] test for admissibility should not apply to all expert testimony, but only to that which involves innovative scientific techniques .... In Porter we recognized that Daubert’s vagueness as to how and when to apply the factors of the test was necessary. ... In order to maintain flexibility in applying the test, we did not define what constitutes scientific evidence.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reid, 254 Conn. 540, 546, 757 A.2d 482 (2000).

Notwithstanding this vagueness, we can resolve the defendant’s claim by determining whether Mathieu’s and Foley’s methods involve “innovative scientific techniques.” We conclude that they do not.

Mathieu testified that the techniques he learned concerning accident reconstruction are “generally accepted and used throughout the nation,” and that “it’s not new material . . . .” He stated that when he arrived at the scene of the collision, he performed an initial outlook that involved observing the road size and features and looking for any physical damage or evidence that could have come before or after the collision, such as tire marks and gouge marks. Mathieu also testified that he was able to identify which vehicles made the tire marks at the scene by tracing the marks to the final resting spots of the vehicles. From his observations, Mathieu testified that, in his opinion, the collision did not occur in the southbound lane because there was no physical evidence of preimpact collision marks, such as skid marks, in that lane.

Looking at the final resting places of the vehicles in a photograph of the scene of the collision, Foley testified that, in his opinion, the collision occurred in the northbound lane. He reached this conclusion by applying the “[p]rincipai direction of force and momentum, which is the mass or weight times speed orvelocity.” He testified that the collision could not have occurred in the southbound lane because “[t]he vehicle dynamics don’t allow that.” Foley also testified that the gouge mark in the road was created by the Koch vehicle’s front rim because the defendant’s vehicle had a “greater height and momentum.”

We conclude that there is nothing novel about the methods used by Mathieu and Foley to reconstruct the accident and reach their conclusions that the collision occurred in the northbound lane. They based their conclusions on visual inspections of the scene of the collision and photographs of the scene, and applied “principles and theories that have been in the recognized literature and have been taught at training academies for decades” to determine where the collision occurred and how certain marks in the road were created. The methods utilized by Mathieu and Foley provided “assistance to the [court] in viewing and evaluating the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reid, supra, 254 Conn. 547.

Furthermore, Montefusco used methods similar to those used by the state’s experts, and his main point of contention with Mathieu’s and Foley’s opinions rested on the fact that they did not calculate the speed of the two vehicles. This, Montefusco claimed, affected their ability to render an accurate opinion as to the point of impact of the two vehicles. Montefusco’s testimony raises a credibility question for the court rather than an issue concerning Mathieu’s and Foley’s qualifications to render expert opinions. See State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 116-20. We conclude, therefore, that a Porter hearing was not required before Mathieu and Foley testified and that the court properly refused to strike their testimony.

IV

In his final claim, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle. See General Statutes § 53a-56b. The defendant specifically claims that the evidence is insufficient because the court’s judgment rested on an erroneous factual finding that the opinions of his expert witness, Montefusco, were based on unsupported assumptions, which were contrary to the circumstantial evidence in the case. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s conviction of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle and that it was well within the court’s discretion to conclude that Montefusco’s opinions were unpersuasive.

“The standard of review employed in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well settled. [W]e apply a two part test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [finder of fact] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ... In evaluating evidence, the [finder] of fact is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant’s innocence. . . . The [finder of fact] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical. ... On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the [finder of fact’s] verdict of guilty.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McGee, 124 Conn. App. 261, 272, 4 A.3d 837, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 911, 10 A.3d 529 (2010).

Section 53a-56b (a) provides: “A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle when, while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both, he causes the death of another person as a consequence of the effect of such liquor or drug.” At trial, the state “was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) operated a motor vehicle (2) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both, (3) caused the death of another person and (4) that such death resulted as a consequence of the effect of such liquor or drug.” State v. Re, 111 Conn. App. 466, 470, 959 A.2d 1044 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 908, 964 A.2d 543 (2009).

It is axiomatic that “the [trier of fact] must And eveiy element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to And the defendant guilty of the charged offense, [but] each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ... If it is reasonable and logical for the [trier] to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the [trier] is permitted to consider the fact proven and may consider it in combination with other proven facts in determining whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence proves the defendant guilty of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . Moreover, it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct. . . . It is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes guilt in a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence. ... In evaluating evidence, the [trier] is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant’s innocence. . . . The [trier] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical. . . . Finally, [a]s we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt . . . nor does proof beyond a reasonable doubt require acceptance of every hypothesis of innocence posed by the defendant that, had it been found credible by the [trier], would have resulted in an acquittal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Nazarian, 125 Conn. App. 489, 495-96, 8 A.3d 562 (2010).

The state presented evidence that the defendant had consumed alcohol at a bar on September 2, 2003, drove his vehicle on Route 85 later that night and had a blood alcohol level of 0.248 after the collision. The state also presented the conclusions of Mathieu and Foley that the defendant’s vehicle had crossed the double yellow line on Route 85 and struck Koch’s vehicle, which was traveling in the northbound lane. Finally, the state presented evidence that Koch died as a result of the collision and that Koch’s death was a consequence of the effect the liquor had on the defendant. In light of this evidence, the court reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the defendant’s claim that the court improperly rejected the opinions of his expert witness is without merit. As noted, the court stated that it considered Montefusco’s testimony in concluding that the defendant was guilty of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle but did not find his opinions to be persuasive. Specifically, the court concluded that Montefusco’s opinions were based on an assumption that the two vehicles were traveling approximately forty miles per hour at the time of the collision, yet there was no evidence that this was what really happened.

“[I]n a case tried before a court, the trial judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given specific testimony. ... As such, the trial court is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the evidence presented by any witness, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and gauge their credibility.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Miller, 122 Conn. App. 631, 635, 999 A.2d 844 (2010). It was within the court’s discretion to conclude that based on the testimony of Mathieu and Foley, the collision occurred in the northbound lane of Route 85, and, therefore, the defendant, who was operating his vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol, caused the collision that resulted in the death of Koch. Additionally, it was proper for the court to conclude that Montefusco’s testimony and his opinions were unpersuasive. We will not disturb the court’s findings concerning credibility on appeal.

The judgments are affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The defendant also appeals from the judgment of the court denying his motion for a new trial. On December 10, 2007, the defendant filed his appeal from the judgment of conviction. On September 17, 2009, the defendant appealed from the court’s judgment denying his motion for a new trial. On February 2, 2010, this court, sua sponte, ordered that the defendant’s two appeals be consolidated.

       The defendant also argues under this claim that the court order requiring defense counsel to turn over their trial notes was an “affront” to defense counsels’ ethical obligations under rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The defendant, however, does not indicate how this relates to his sixth amendment claim. Regardless, we conclude that disclosure of defense counsel’s trial notes from September 12, 2007, did not violate rule 1.6.' Rule 1.6 (a) provides: “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by subsection (b), (c), or (d).” Subsection (c) provides in relevant part: “A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to . . . (4) [cjomply with other law or a court order.” Pursuant to rule 1.6 (c) (4), therefore, defense counsel were permitted to disclose their notes to the extent necessary to comply with the court order.

       “The sixth amendment to the United States constitution as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment, and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, guarantee to a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn. App. 538, 542, 15 A.3d 658, cert. granted on other grounds, 301 Conn. 921, 22 A.3d 1280 (2011).

       “A criminal defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel extends through the first appeal of right and is guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and by article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Watson v. Commissioner of Correction, 111 Conn. App. 160, 167, 958 A.2d 782, cert. denied, 290 Conn. 901, 962 A.2d 128 (2008).

       Courts in this state previously have utilized trial notes from a defense attorney for the purposes of reconstructing an incomplete record. In State v. Williams, supra, 227 Conn. 101, for example, the defendant requested a copy of the transcript from his criminal trial and was notified that two tapes, containing the trial proceedings of the afternoon of October 31, 1989, were missing. Id., 104. The court “conducted hearings in order to attempt to reconstruct the proceedings that were contained on the missing tapes. At the hearings, the witnesses who had testified on the afternoon of October 31, 1989, testified as to their recollection of the testimony they had given that afternoon. Notes taken by the court, counsel for both parties, the court monitor and other observers of the proceedings also became part of the reconstructed record.” Id., 104-105.

       In Weber, the state had initiated a criminal proceeding against the defendant. State v. Weber, supra, 49 Conn. Sup. 530-31. The case eventually was dismissed, and the defendant sought to sue the state for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Id., 531. The defendant requested files and records pertaining to the state’s criminal investigation against him, and the state refused to disclose certain information pursuant to the attorney work product doctrine. Id., 532.

       Our research has revealed that the appellate courts in this state have not addressed the issue of whether Porter applies to testimony concerning accident reconstruction. The court in Marsala v. Groonell, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-96-025959-S (August 14, 2001), however, concluded that Por ter did not apply to the testimony of the accident reconstructionist who testified in that case because his testimony did not involve scientific evidence. Instead, the testimony was based on the expert’s opinions on the materials submitted to him and on his expertise as an accident reconstructionist.

       Although Foley did not calculate the speed of the vehicles, he testified that it was clear from the photographs of the scene of the collision that Koch’s vehicle had very little momentum prior to the collision.

       Courts in other jurisdictions have noted that accident reconstruction utilizes the basic laws of physics. See, e.g., Giard v. Darby, 360 F. Sup. 2d 229,236 (D. Mass. 2005) (engineering background and experience of accident reconstructionist “enabled him to apply basic physics to form his opinions in the case at bar”); Fowler v. Bauman, 663 So. 2d 438, 440 (La. App. 1995) (trial court properly admitted testimony of accident reconstructionist because testimony “was based on accident reconstruction principles which have been widely accepted by courts for many years,” and his “opinions were based on ‘the law of physics and engineering,’ which we find is ‘generally accepted in the scientific community’ ”).