New London, Connecticut, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with murder.

Jose Ramos, who previously was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and sentenced to sixty years of imprisonment, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action against the defendant, the state of Connecticut (state), in which he sought declaratory... More...    $0 (02-04-2025 - CT)

New London, Connecticut personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on defamation, invastion of privacy by false light, statutory and common-law vexatious litigation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The civil action filed by the plaintiffs, Michael Robinson and Mary Robinson, seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief for defam... More...    $0 (11-26-2024 - CT)

Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut, civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff contesting constitutionality of mandatory school vaccination policy.



The plaintiffs, Keira Spillane and Anna Kehle, are parents of minor children who challenge the elimination of the religious exemption from the school vaccination requirement. They commenced the present action aga... More...    $0 (10-17-2024 - CT)

New Haven, Connecticut civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on Americans with Disabilities Act violation theories.


In this federal civil rights action, Plaintiff Angela Puccinelli alleges that Defendant Southern Connecticut State University (“SCSUâ€�), and Defendants Joe Bertolino, Stephen Hegedus, Robert Prezant, and Kara Faraclas (the “Individual Defend... More...    $0 (07-28-2023 - CT)

On April 2, 2013, Derrick Bryant brought suit against, inter alia, Officers
Kenneth Egan and John Slezak of the Meriden Police Department, alleging that
they had used excessive force against him in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
After a trial was held and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers, Bryant
moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.... More...    $0 (05-21-2018 - CT)

1 Appeal by plaintiff from so much of a judgment of the United States
2 District Court for the District of Connecticut, Geoffrey W. Crawford, Judge, as granted
3 summary judgment dismissing his claims against defendant City of Hartford (the
4 "City"), brought principally under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failing to supervise its police
5 officers with respect to appropriate use of force;... More...    $0 (03-13-2018 - CT)

Plaintiffs‐Appellants Chad E. Cohen and Kirsten Cohen (the “Cohens”)
filed a Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of Connecticut against
Defendant‐Third‐Party‐Plaintiff‐Appellee Postal Holdings, LLC (“Postal
Holdings”), stating a claim of private nuisance based on injuries allegedly caused
by Postal Holdings’s failure to maintain a property it... More...    $0 (10-11-2017 - CT)

It is well established that the state may immunize from prosecution a witness called in its case-in-chief. See generally General Statutes § 54-47a. Theprimaryquestioninthisappealiswhetherthestate, after immunizing such a witness for testimony given during the state’s case-in-chief, may decline to extend that immunity to the same witness in connection with his testimony during the defense case-in-... More...    $0 (10-22-2016 - CT)

We have been asked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to consider whether the ‘‘[g]ood tobacco’’ exception to strict products liability contained in comment (i) to § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts1 precludes an action in this state against a cigarette manufacturer for including additives and manipulating the nicotine in its cigarettes in a manner that ultimatel... More...    $0 (04-25-2016 - CT)

This certified appeal addresses the scope of the marital communications privilege codified in General Statutes § 54-84b.1 The defendant, Sheila Davalloo, was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. The defendant appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirmingthatconvictionafterconcludingthatherstatements to her husband, Paul Christos, did not... More...    $0 (04-16-2016 - CT)

The state appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed in part the judgment of the trial court convicting the defendant, Kenneth Jamison, following a jury trial, of, inter alia, illegal possession of an explosive in violation of General Statutes § 29-348, and manufacturing a bomb in violation of General Statutes § 53-80a.1 See State v. Ja... More...    $0 (04-01-2016 - CT)

The defendant, Alain Leconte, appeals from the judgments of the trial court convicting him of crimes committed during a string of armed robberies in the cities of Stamford and Norwalk, and the town of Greenwich,betweenOctoberandDecember,2009.1 The defendant claims that his convictions resulting from theStamfordrobberyshouldbereversedontheground that his constitutional right to counsel was violate... More...    $0 (02-16-2016 - CT)

The state appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the decision of the trial court granting the application of the defendant, Mycall Obas, to be exempted from continued registration as a sex of fender pursuant to General Statutes § 54-251(b).1 On appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the trial court had the authority to grant the defendant’s ... More...    $0 (02-08-2016 - CT)

This certified appeal addresses the scope of the marital communications privilege codified in General Statutes § 54-84b.1 The defendant, Sheila Davalloo, was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. The defendant appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirmingthatconvictionafterconcludingthatherstatements to her husband, Paul Christos, did not... More...    $0 (01-01-2016 - CT)

The plaintiffs, Amelia Cales and Rebecca Cales, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their appeal from the decision of a Victim Compensation Commissioner (commissioner) affirming the decision of the defendant, the Office of Victim Services. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly dismissed their appeal on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdicti... More...    $0 (11-23-2015 - CT)

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff owns and resides in a house located on Newport Avenue in West Hartford. The defendant is a municipal corporation that provides potable water and sewerage services to its customers, including the plaintiff, on a regional basis. On October 15, 2005, and March 7, 2011, raw sewage entered into and flooded the plainti... More...    $0 (10-13-2015 - CT)

.Thenameddefendant,BaconConstructionCompany,Inc.,1appealsfromthetrialcourt’sdenial of its motion for summary judgment, in which it argued thattheclaimshereinassertedbytheplaintiff,thestate of Connecticut, are all barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel2 because such claims wereorcouldhavebeenmadeanddecidedinanearlier arbitrationproceedinginitiatedbythedefendantpursuant to G... More...    $0 (09-14-2015 - CT)

It is undisputed that on May 8, 2009, shortly after 11:00 a.m., Rogoz drove to the
17 vicinity of Lawrence Street in Hartford, Connecticut (hereafter the "Lawrence Street area"), "a hot spot
18 area for illegal drug activity," D.Ct. Op., 2013 WL 3816580, at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted),
19 and, through the window of his vehicle, bought $50 worth of heroin. Rogoz then turned ... More...    $0 (08-10-2015 - CT)

Cara Munn and her parents brought suit against the Hotchkiss
School after Munn contracted tick‐borne encephalitis on a schoolorganized
trip to China. At trial, a jury found Hotchkiss negligent and
awarded the Munns $41.5 million in damages, $31.5 of which were noneconomic
damages. On appeal, the school argues that it did not have a
legal duty to warn about or protect agai... More...    $0 (08-03-2015 - CT)

2 The question in this case is whether a Connecticut rule restricting the
3 use of certain teeth‐whitening procedures to licenced dentists is unconstitutional
4 under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. Because we conclude that
5 there are any number of rational grounds for the rule, we affirm the judgment of
6 the District Court.
7 BACKGROUND
8 Under Connect... More...    $0 (07-17-2015 - CT)

A jury found that the defendant, the
Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, acted
negligently and recklessly when it assigned Father Ivan
Ferguson, an alcoholic whose admitted acts of child
molestation were understood to be linked to his drinking,
to serve as the director of Saint Mary’s Elementary
School in Derby (Saint Mary’s School), where he sexually
abus... More...    $0 (06-27-2015 - CT)

Walter A. Forbes appeals from a February 27, 2014 order of the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J.) denying his
motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Forbes,
former chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors at CUC
International, Inc. (“CUCâ€�) and former chairman of CUC’s successor, Cendan... More...    $0 (06-23-2015 - CT)

Plaintiffs-appellees Daniel Golodner and Security Technology Systems (“STS�) brought
suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the City of New London (“the City�) and two City
officials, defendants-appellants Martin Berliner and Robert Myers (“Appellants�), retaliated
against Golodner for exercising his rights under the First Amendment when he filed an earlier
lawsuit ... More...    $0 (10-27-2014 - CT)

11 Plaintiffs�Appellees (the “plaintiffs�), two former and one
12 current female New Britain police officers, brought suit in the
13 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against
14 the City of New Britain, its police department, the police union, and
15 five individual police supervisors under Title VII of the Civil Rights
16 Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.... More...    $0 (10-13-2014 - CT)

In this uncontested wrongful termination action, the plaintiff, Brian O’Toole, appeals from the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly dismissed his complaint because the court had (1) concurrent jurisdiction to decide his claim brought pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., and (2) subje... More...    $0 (02-24-2014 - CT)

In this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs, the Animal Rights Front, Inc. (“ARFâ€�) and two of its members, Lisa Zalaski and Derek V. Oatis, appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Vanessa L. Bryant, Judge), entered after a bench trial in favor of defendant, Hartford Police Sergeant Daniel Albert, on claims that Albert violated pl... More...    $0 (07-23-2013 - CT)

In a matter involving employment discrimination and First Amendment retaliation claims, Plaintiff-Appellant Edwin Garcia appeals from a September 27, 2011 final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, C.J.), granting summary judgment to the Defendants-Appellees. Garcia, a former sergeant with the City of Hartford Police Department (“Hartford PDâ€�)... More...    $0 (01-28-2013 - CT)

The plaintiff, Michael Sweeney, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Friends of Hammonasset (Friends) and Deanna Becker. The plaintiff claims that the court concluded improperly that (1) the theory of liability set forth in his complaint sounded in premises liability, on which he could not prevail as a matter of law because the def... More...    $0 (01-01-2013 - CT)

In this consolidated appeal, the plaintiffs in the first action (SC 18643), Craig Ugrin and Samantha Ugrin, and the plaintiffs in the second action (SC 18644), William Baker and Lisa Baker, appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the named defendant, the town of Cheshire (town).1 The plaintiffs filed virtually identical complaints against the town after a massive sinkhole developed... More...    $0 (10-30-2012 - CT)

This is an appeal from a denial of a renewed motion for summary judgment by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Eginton, J.). Defendant-Appellant Abigail Hughes (“Hughesâ€�), the Superintendent of the Connecticut Technical High School System, renewed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that she is entitled to qualified immunity in this § 1983 action in which Hug... More...    $0 (10-25-2012 - CT)

The principal issue in this appeal is whether a physician who fails to advise an unaware patient of the potential driving risks associated with her underlying medical condition breaches a duty to the victim of the patient’s unsafe driving because of the failure to advise. The plaintiff, John Jarmie, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants, Frank Troncale, a physic... More...    $0 (09-24-2012 - CT)

The named plaintiff, Tracey Haynes, on her own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff Jasmon Vereen, her minor son, brought this action against the defendant, the city of Middletown, claiming that Vereen had incurred injuries when a fellow student at Middletown High School pushed him into a broken locker.

Responding to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the defendant filed its answer and special d... More...    $0 (09-24-2012 - CT)

The plaintiff, Maria E. Mills, executrix of the estate of Clarence Israel Mills (decedent), appeals from the summary judgments rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants the city of Bridgeport (city); Philip C. Handy, the director of the city’s department of parks and recreation; Anthony Armeno, the city’s acting chief of police at the time of the subject incident; 5 Star Amusement... More...    $0 (09-16-2012 - CT)

The defendants, the town of Darien (town) and Michael Cotta, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Mieczyslaw Wisniewski and Jolanta Wisniewski, after a jury trial in this personal injury action.1 On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) improperly refused to direct the verdicts in their favor as a matter of law and (2) improperly refused to set... More...    $0 (05-08-2012 - CT)

The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 52-557n,1 in providing that General Statutes § 13a-1492 affords the exclusive remedy against a municipality for injuries caused by a defect in a road or bridge, precludes a concurrent nuisance claim against a town when the trial court ultimately determines, on summary judgment, that the plaintiff has failed to establish a high... More...    $0 (04-04-2012 - CT)

This case comes before us upon our acceptance of certified questions of law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199b (d).1 The certified questions are: (1) Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to conservators appointed by the Connecticut Probate Court?; (2) Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judici... More...    $0 (04-04-2012 - CT)