source: Caselaw Access Project

author: BERDON, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHAEL C. STORY

      M. Donald, Cardwell, in support of the petition.

      Christopher T. Godialis, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided September 29, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 53 Conn. App. 733 (AC 17763), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant certification to appeal on the following issue: Did the Appellate Court correctly sustain the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress? See the well reasoned dissenting opinion of Judge Hennessy in State v. Story, 53 Conn. App. 733, 741, 732 A.2d 785 (1999).

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


author: MCDONALD, J., with whom BERDON, J.,

text:
    IN RE JESSICA S.
   The respondent mother’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 51 Conn. App. 667 (AC 17980), is denied.

MCDONALD, J., with whom BERDON, J.,

joins dissenting. I would grant certification limited to the following issues: (1) Did the trial court correctly terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother who is mentally ill? (2) Did the department of children and families fail to provide mandated services of reunification to preserve the family unit?

“ ‘[F]ew consequences of judicial action are so grave as the severance of natural family ties.’ ” M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 119, 117 S. Ct. 555, 136 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1996). It is “plain beyond the need for multiple citation that a natural parent’s desire for and right to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children is an interest far more precious than any property right. . . . When the State initiates a parental rights termination proceeding, it seeks not merely to infringe that fundamental liberty interest, but to end it. . . . If the State prevails, it will have worked a unique kind of deprivation. A parent’s interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982); see also Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27, 101 S. Ct. 2153, 68 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1981).

In this case, David Mantell, a psychologist, testified as the court-appointed psychologist and recommended termination of parental rights. Mantell also has recommended termination in many other cases. Recently the Appellate Court ruled that his testimony in one case should have been stricken because he simultaneously worked both as the court-appointed evaluator and as an evaluator for the state. In re David W., 52 Conn. App. 576, 727 A.2d 264, cert. granted, 249 Conn. 908, 733 A.2d 225 (1999); see also In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 718 n.8, 741 A.2d 843 (1999) (McDonald, J., dissenting). As reflected in the trial court’s decision, Man-tell played a large role in the termination of parental rights in this case. For this reason, I would grant certification.

Nancy S., in support of the petition.

Decided July 21, 1999

Accordingly, I dissent.

       See, e.g., In re Pascacio R., 52 Conn. App. 106, 726 A.2d 114 (1999) (Mantell recommending termination of psychologically impaired parent’s rights); In re Anna B., 50 Conn. App. 298, 717 A.2d 289 (1998) (same); In re Eden F., 48 Conn. App. 290, 710 A.2d 771, cert. granted, 245 Conn. 917, 717 A.2d 234 (1998) (same); In re Christina V., 38 Conn. App. 214, 660 A.2d 863 (1995) (same); In re Michael M., 29 Conn. App. 112, 614 A.2d 832 (1992) (same); see also In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 181 Conn. 638, 436 A.2d 290 (1980) (same).


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16195.

      Lisa Herskowitz, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.
    Decided September 29, 1999
   The petition of the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 258 (AC 16687), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the mention by the state of a part B information required that the judgment of conviction be reversed?”

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. WILLIAM JAMES
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 26 (AC 17248), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant certification to appeal on the following issue: Whether the defendant, William James, was required to retreat under General Statutes § 53a-19 (b) before he used deadly force against the intruder who entered the defendant’s house in violation of a protective order issued by the court pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-38c (d) and (e), thereby committing a trespass in violation of General Statutes § 53a-107 (a) (2).

Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

LeonF. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided September 29, 1999

       General Statutes § 53a-19 (b) provides in relevant part: “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he is in his dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, or place of work and was not the initial aggressor . . .

       General Statutes § 46b-38c provides in relevant part: “(d) . . . A judge of the Superior Court may consider and impose the following conditions to protect the parties, including but not limited to: (1) Issuance of aprotective order pursuant to subsection (e); such order shall be an order of the court, and the clerk of the court shall cause (A) a certified copy of such order to be sent to the victim, and (B) a certified copy of such order to be sent within forty-eight hours of its issuance to the appropriate law enforcement agency ....
      “(e) A protective order issued under this section may include provisions necessary to protect the victim from threats, harassment, injury or intimidation by the defendant, including but not limited to, an order erqoining the defendant from ... (3) entering . . . the dwelling of the victim. . . .”

       General Statutes § 53a-107 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when ... (2) he enters or remains in a building or any other premises in violation of ... a protective order issued pursuant to section 46b-38c or 54-lk by the Superior Court.”


text:
    MARY ELLEN MURPHY v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 127 (AC 17906), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16193.

Priscilla J. Green, assistant attorney general, in support of the petition.

Barry N. Silver, in opposition.

Decided September 29, 1999

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the evidence in the administrative record was insufficient to establish probable cause that the plaintiff had violated General Statutes § 14-227a?”


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ADAM H.

      Glenn M. Conway, in support of the petition.

      Susan C. Marks, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided September 29, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 387 (AC 17912), is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    MORRIS SILVERSTEIN ET AL. v. RICHARD B. LASCHEVER, ADMINISTRATOR (ESTATE OF ESTHER S. SILVERSTEIN), ET AL.
   The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 901 (AC 18049), is denied.

Morris Silverstein, pro se, and Samuel Silverstein, pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided September 29, 1999

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    TOWN OF SOUTHINGTON v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16194.

      Marjorie S. Wilder and Thomas A. Rouse, in support of the petition.

      Joseph A. Yamin, in opposition.
    Decided September 29, 1999
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 328 (AC 18088), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant surety was not liable to the plaintiff municipality because of the provisions of General Statutes § 8-26c (c)?”


text:
    SAMUEL VEAL v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

      David B. Rozwaski, in support of the petition.

      Denise B. Smoker, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided September 29, 1999
   The petitioner Samuel Veal’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 384 (AC 18367), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the petitioner Samuel Veal’s petition for certification to appeal.

NORCOTT and KATZ, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    MARIA FERNANDES v. EYVIND RODRIGUEZ ET AL.
   The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 444 (AC 17646), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“In this partition action, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court had the equitable power to order the named defendant to convey his interest in the property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff to pay the named defendant money damages?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16198.

Eyvind Rodriguez, pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided October 6, 1999


text:
    ELIZABETH A. VILLANO, EXECUTRIX (ESTATE OF FREDERICK VILLANO) v. CARLO POLIMENI ET AL.

      Renee Marie Houle, in support- of the petition.

      Thomas M. DeLillo, in opposition.
    Decided October 6, 1999
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 744 (AC 17810), is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    DOROTHY WOOD v. LAILA AMER ET AL.
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16199.

      Frederic S. Ury, in support of the petition.
   The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 601 (AC 18410), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) the ‘Brush deed’ contained two separate restrictive covenants, and that, therefore, the grantor intended that only one house was to be located on either lot 10 or lot 11; and (2) the statute of limitations contained in General Statutes § 52-575a had not expired with respect to the plaintiffs claim of a violation of a covenant not to build?”

Stanley A. Twardy, Jr., Deborah S. Gordon and Mario R. Borelli, in opposition.

Decided October 6, 1999


text:
    CITICORP MORTGAGE, INC. v. JAMES E. CONANT ET AL.

      Andrew B. Nevas, in support of the petition.

      Robert J. Piscitelli, in opposition.
    Decided October 6, 1999
   The defendants James E. Conant and Rita L. Conant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 529 (AC 18442), is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. NANA BONSU

      Raul Davila-Carlos, in support of the petition.

      Harry Weller, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided October 21, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 229 (AC 17315), is denied.


text:
    ALEXANDER KURTI v. CAROLYN H. BECKER ET AL.
   The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 335 (AC 17978), is denied.

Scott P. Birrell, in support of the petition.

Glory Martyn Lena, in opposition.

Decided October 21, 1999

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MELVIN MITCHELL

      Lisa J. Steele, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Judith Rossi, executive assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided October 21, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 361 (AC 18502), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal.


text:
    CLAUDIOUS W. CHANNER v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT

      Claudious W. Channer, pro se, in support of the petition.

      Michele C. Lukban, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided October 21, 1999
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 620 (AC 17857), is denied.


text:
    SEBASTIAN GANGEMI ET AL. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16208.

      John E. Curran, in support of the petition.

      John F. Fallon and Richard H. Saxl, in opposition.
    Decided October 21, 1999
   The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 559 (AC 17688), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ appeal from the decision of the zoning board of appeals’ refusal to invalidate the ‘no rental’ condition on the 1986 zoning variance?”


text:
    E. J. ELLIOTT ET AL. v. RAYMOND STARON, EXECUTOR (ESTATE OF PAULINE STARON)
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16209.

      Kenneth J. Bartschi and Wesley W. Horton, in support of the petition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 632 (AC 17774), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s judgment to the extent that the judgment was based on a finding that the defendant had breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?”

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Daniel Shepro and Nathalie Feola-Guerrieri, in opposition.

Decided October 21, 1999


text:
    CHASE MANHATTAN BANK v. CDC FINANCIAL CORPORATION ET AL.

      Stuart D. Rosen and Ann M. Siczewicz, in support of the petition.
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 705 (AC 18031), is denied.

ST IT LTV AN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Howard L. Siegel and Jonathan J. Kane, in opposition.

Decided October 21, 1999


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. THOMAS SANDERS

      Michael O. Sheehan, in support of the petition.

      Marjorie Allen Dauster, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided October 21, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 732 (AC 17804), is denied.


text:
    JAMES CALVIN TILLMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

      Joseph W. McQuade, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Carolyn K Longstreth, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided October 21, 1999
   The petitioner James Calvin Tillman’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 749 (AC 17461), is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. GWENDOLYN MCNAIR
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 807 (AC 17459), is denied.

Katharine S. Goodbody, special public defender, in support of the petition.

Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided October 21, 1999

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ROBERT M. GRANT

      Robert M. Grant, pro se, in support of the petition.

      Carolyn K Longstreth, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided October 21, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court is dismissed.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ROBERT W. SPILLANE
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16215.

      James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.
   The petition of the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 201 (AC 17194), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“ 1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court’s instructions regarding ‘appropriate’ were constitutionally inadequate?
“2. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’ was the error harmful?”

Joel M. Ellis and Donald E. Weisman, in opposition.

Decided November 2, 1999


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ROBERT W. SPILLANE

      Joel M. Ellis and Donald E. Weisman, in support of the petition.

      James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided November 2, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 201 (AC 17194), is denied.


text:
    BERNARD GIPSON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16216.

      James J. Ruane, in support of the petition.

      Michele C. Lukban, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided November 2, 1999
   The petitioner Bernard Gipson’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 400 (AC 17745), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in connection with a petition for certification to the Supreme Court?”
“Does a criminal defendant have a state statutory right to the assistance of counsel in connection with a petition for certification to the Supreme Court?”


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EDWARD FERREIRA

      Donald D. Dakers, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Robert J. Scheinblum, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided November 2, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 763 (AC 17814), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal.


text:
    DIANE FERRARA v. HOSPITAL OF ST. RAPHAEL ET AL.

      John A. Keyes, in support of the petition.

      Andrew A. Cohen and Kerri Kelemen, in opposition.
    Decided November 2, 1999
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 345 (AC 17832), is denied.

NORCOTT and SULLIVAN, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    ROXANNE M. POLIZOS v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 724 (AC 18130), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16214.

A. Jeffrey Somers, in support of the petition.

George J. Markley, in opposition.

Decided November 2, 1999

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the contract statute of limitations on the plaintiffs action for uninsured motorist benefits began to run on the date that the plaintiff became aware that the tortfeasor was uninsured?”

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    DEAN SANFORD v. CLINTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL.

      Penn Rhodeen, in support of the petition.
    Decided November 2, 1999
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 266 (AC 18240), is denied.

BERDON, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    WILLIAM A. OLSON v. ACCESSORY CONTROLS AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION ET AL.
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 506 (AC 18324), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“In the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly had determined that certain communications between counsel for the named defendant and an expert consulting firm retained by the named defendant were covered by the attorney-client privilege?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16218.

Michael N. LaVelle and Alan I. Scheer, in support of the petition.

Glenn A. Duhl, Richard D. O’Connor, Edward F. O’Donnell and George J. Kelly, Jr., in opposition.

Decided November 2, 1999


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. WILLIAM ASKEW

      Michelle M. Napoli, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Robert M. Spector, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided November 2, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 34 (AC 17799), is denied.

NORCOTT and SULLIVAN, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    TOWN OF HAMDEN ET AL. v. LEE S. BRADY ET AL.

      Lee S. Brady, pro se, in support of the petition.
    Decided November 2, 1999
   The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 18724) is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JOHN CASANOVA, JR.
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16217.

      Jon L. Schoenhom, in support of the petition.

      John A. East III, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided November 18, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 714 (AC 17372), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the behavior of police officers was irrelevant to a prosecution under General Statutes § 53a-167c, and therefore preclusion of evidence of same did not violate the defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights?
“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that General Statutes § 54-84 (b) does not permit a trial court to alter the language pertaining to the defendant’s ‘failure to testily’ despite a specific request by the defendant not to use that phrase because of its negative connotation?
“3. If the answer to question two is yes, should this court exercise its supervisory authority to substitute neutral language under General Statutes § 54-84 (b) when requested by the defendant?”

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    MARTIN HAMMOND v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
   The petitioner Martin Hammond’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 11 (AC 17784), is granted, limited to the following issues:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16220.

Temmy Ann Pieszak, supervisory assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Decided November 18, 1999

“1. Whether the Appellate Court properly interpreted General Statutes § 18-98d?
“2. Whether the Appellate Court properly recast the issue on appeal, concluding that it had not been adequately briefed?”

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    ROXANNA PANGANIBAN v. ALAN S. PANGANIBAN

      Thomas D. Colin, in support of the petition.

      Stephen W. Reck, in opposition.
    Decided November 18, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 634 (AC 18072), is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CARRIE JONES
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 709 (AC 18379), is denied.

James B. Streeto, deputy assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Frederick W. Fawcett, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided November 18, 1999


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEPHEN BELANGER

      Howard I. Gemeiner, in support of the petition.

      Eileen McCarthy Geel, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided November 18, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 2 (AC 17279), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal.

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JERMYN REED

      James B. Streeto, deputy assistant public defender, in support of the petition.
    Decided November 18, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 170 (AC 17543), is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. SHERAIL COOPER

      Theresa M. Dalton, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

      Robert M. Spector, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided November 18, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 95 (AC 18008), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal.


text:
    ROBERT B. BERGER ET AL. v. ARTHUR L. FITZGERALD, JR., ET AL.

      James H. Howard and Howard M. Wood III, in support of the petition.

      Michael C. Blaney, Wesley W. Horton and Maria Stavropoulos, in opposition.
    Decided November 18, 1999
   The petition of the defendants Arthur L. Fitzgerald, Jr., and Arthur L. Fitzgerald III for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 138 (AC 18045), is denied.


text:
    MICHAEL CONNAIR v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 129 (AC 18175), is denied.

Brian W. Prucker, in support of the petition.

Decided November 18, 1999


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. KEITH HOFFLER

      Michael L. Moskowitz, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Carolyn K. Longstreth, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided November 18, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 210 (AC 18259), is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST v. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF RIDGEFIELD

      Sharon Wicks Domfeld, in support of the petition.

      J. Allen Kerr, Jr., in opposition.
    Decided November 18, 1999
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 59 (AC 18423), is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


author: MCDONALD, C. J.,

text:
    COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES v. SULLIVAN ASSOCIATES COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES v. SULLIVAN ASSOCIATES
    (SC 16042)

      James H. Lee, in support of the motion.

      Raymond P. Pech and David S. Stowe, in opposition.
    Decided December 21, 1999
   The motion by the defendant Sullivan Asociates for reargument or reargument en banc of this court’s decision in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 250 Conn. 763, 739 A.2d 238 (1999), is denied.

MCDONALD, C. J.,

dissenting. I dissent from the vote denying reargument in this case for the reasons stated in my dissent published in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 250 Conn. 763, 739 A.2d 238 (1999). I wish to note that the vote on this motion making a vast change in the law of property and landlord and tenant was five to four.


author: BERDON, J., MCDONALD, J.,

text:
    IN RE EDEN F. ET AL.
    (SC 15965)
   The motion by the respondent mother, Ann F., for reargument en banc of this court’s decision in In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 741 A.2d 843 (1999), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I dissent from the denial of the respondent mother’s motion for reargument en banc for the reasons stated in my dissent to In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 720B, 741 A.2d 843 (1999).

Roger E. Bunker, in support of the motion.

David T. Stone, in opposition.

Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, in opposition.

Decided December 21, 1999

MCDONALD, J.,

dissenting. I concur in the reasoning and conclusions of Justice Berdon’s dissent. In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 720B, 741 A.2d 843 (1999).


text:
    JESSE MILES, TRUSTEE v. DANIEL A. FOLEY ET AL.
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16210.

      Robert A. Fuller, in support of the petition.

      Michael J. Cacace, Ronald E. Kowalski II and Aamina Ahmad, in opposition.
    Decided November 30, 1999
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 645 (AC 17418), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment of mandamus that the defendant commission approve the plaintiffs subdivision?”

MCDONALD, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    DONNA J. EAST v. LISA M. LABBE ET AL.
   The petition of the plaintiff and the intervening plaintiff, Easter Seal Society, Inc., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 54 Conn. App. 479 (AC 18320), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16196.

Keith S. McCabe, in support of the petition.

Decided November 30, 1999

“Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the named defendant based upon its determination that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact that the vehicle in question did not fall within the statutory definition of ‘motor vehicle?’ ”

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. VASKA ANDERSON
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16225.

      Nancy L. Chupak, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

      Wesley S. Spears, in opposition.
    Decided November 30, 1999
   The petition of the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 60 (AC 17456), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the juror misconduct involved in this case (1) required it to exercise its supervisory authority so as to order a new trial, and (2) was a structural defect that required a new trial without an inquiry into its harmlessness?”


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JAMES BRILEY

      Lisa J. Steele, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Bruce R. Lockwood, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
    Decided November 30, 1999
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 258 (AC 17529), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal on the following issue: (1) Did the state’s closing argument constitute prosecutorial misconduct; and (2) If the answer to question one is in the affirmative, did the defendant waive his right because he failed to object at trial?

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. RALPH CARABETTA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. SALVATORE P. CARABETTA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. EVELYN M. CARABETTA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. SALVATORE R. CARABETTA
   The petition by the defendants, Ralph Carabetta, Salvatore P. Carabetta, Evelyn M. Carabetta and Salvatore R. Carabetta, for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 369 (AC 17871), is denied.

Kerry M. Wisser and Nathan A. Schatz, in support of the petition.

James W. Oliver and Maria K. Tongas, in opposition.

Decided November 30, 1999

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. RALPH CARABETTA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. SALVATORE P. CARABETTA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. EVELYN M. CARABETTA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. SALVATORE R. CARABETTA

      Kerry M. Wisser and Nathan A. Schatz, in support of the petition.

      James W. Oliver and Maria K. Tongas, in opposition.
    Decided November 30, 1999
   The petition by the defendants, Ralph Carabetta, Salvatore P. Carabetta, Evelyn M. Carabetta and Salvatore R. Carabetta, for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 384 (AC 17923), is denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    LILLIAN MACK v. BERNARD LAVALLEY ET AL.
   The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 150 (AC 18196), is denied.

Michael S. Taylor, Daniel P. Scapellati and David G. Hill, in support of the petition.

Brian W. Prucker, in opposition.

Decided November 30, 1999


text:
    ALBERT CHANCE v. NORWALK FAST OIL, INC., ET AL.

      Christopher T. Coburn, in support of the petition.
    Decided November 30, 1999
   The petition by the defendants Seymour Epstein, Morris Epstein and Richard Kosminoff for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 272 (AC 18303), is denied.


text:
    MARTIN TARTAGLINO v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

      Paul S. Ranando, in support of the petition.

      Matthew I. Levine, assistant attorney general, in opposition.
    Decided November 30, 1999
   The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 190 (AC 18568), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal.