case for a new hearing in Connecticut

2024Held that, in accordance with our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction ( 348 Conn. 333 ) and this court’s recent decision in Hankerson v. Commis- sioner of Correction ( 223 Conn. App. 562 ), this court reversed the judg- ment of the habeas court and remanded the case for a new hearing and good cause determination under § 52-470 (d) and (e).

2024In accordance with our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333 , 304 A.3d 431 (2023), and our recent decision in Hankerson v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. App. 562 , 308 A.3d 1113 (2024),2 we conclude that the judgment of the habeas court must be reversed, and we remand the case for a new hearing and good cause determination under § 52-470 (d) and (e).

2024Held that, in accordance with our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction ( 348 Conn. 333 ) and this court’s recent decision in Hankerson v. Commis- sioner of Correction ( 223 Conn. App. 562 ), this court reversed the judg- ment of the habeas court and remanded the case for a new hearing and good cause determination under § 52-470 (d) and (e).

2024In accordance with our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333 , 304 A.3d 431 (2023), and our recent decision in Hankerson v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. App. 562 , 308 A.3d 1113 (2024),2 we conclude that the judgment of the habeas court must be reversed, and we remand the case for a new hearing and good cause determination under § 52-470 (d) and (e).

2018Id., [at] 312 [ 68 A.3d 1204 ].

2018Id., [at] 312 [ 68 A.3d 1204 ].

2016Because we hold that the court’s punitive damages award was improper and remand the case for a new hearing on punitive damages, this issue is moot. ‘‘[I]t is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cornelius, 131 Conn. App. 216, 219 , 26 A.3d 700 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 946 , 30 A.3d 1 (2011).

2016Because we hold that the court’s punitive damages award was improper and remand the case for a new hearing on punitive damages, this issue is moot. ‘‘[I]t is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cornelius, 131 Conn. App. 216, 219 , 26 A.3d 700 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 946 , 30 A.3d 1 (2011).

2016Because we hold that the court’s punitive damages award was improper and remand the case for a new hearing on punitive damages, this issue is moot. ‘‘[I]t is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cornelius, 131 Conn. App. 216, 219 , 26 A.3d 700 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 946 , 30 A.3d 1 (2011).

2016Because we hold that the court’s punitive damages award was improper and remand the case for a new hearing on punitive damages, this issue is moot. ‘‘[I]t is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cornelius, 131 Conn. App. 216, 219 , 26 A.3d 700 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 946 , 30 A.3d 1 (2011).

1994Mulholland v. Mulholland, 26 Conn. App. 585 , 602 A.2d 1054 (1992) [Mulholland I]. 2 On March 5, 1992, the trial court again took up the contempt motion.

1994Mulholland v. Mulholland, 26 Conn. App. 585 , 602 A.2d 1054 (1992) [Mulholland I]. 2 On March 5, 1992, the trial court again took up the contempt motion.

2026The court noted, however, that the petitioner in Rose had presented testimony from his prior habeas attorney, and he had submitted a transcript of the proceeding at which he withdrew his prior petition, which shed light on the advice that his prior counsel had provided him.5 See id., 339–40. 5 In Rose, although our Supreme Court summarized the evidence that had been presented in support of the petitioner’s claim, it remanded the case for a new hearing and good cause determination because the habeas court had not made any factual findings regarding the alleged Hobby v. Commissioner of Correctio

2025In such circumstances, we typically presume that the court ‘‘undertook a proper analysis of the law and made whatever findings of fact were necessary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Walters v. Servidio, 227 Conn. App. 1, 35 , 320 A.3d 1008 (2024).

2025The plaintiff also did not seek an articulation of the court’s decision in this regard. ‘‘Absent an articulation regarding the legal basis for the trial court’s decision, a claim of error cannot be predicated 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 15 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 17 Cardona v. Padilla by issuing an order that does not provide the child with the active and consistent involvement of both parents as required by § 46b-56 (b), as the visitation order does not provide the plaintiff with any visitation time in Flor- ida, and, pursuant to the order, there are significant gaps in time in which the plai

2022Zesmery also testified that Tanisha had disclosed to her that the respondent mother told Tanisha and Alyson that they needed to lose weight so the respondent mother could sell pictures of them online. 8 The court also admitted statements that Alizabeth made during her foren- sic interview under the medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule; Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (5); the propriety of which we discuss in part II of this opinion. 9 Section 8-9 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides: ‘‘A statement that is not admissible under any of the foregoing exceptions is admissible if the court

2022Zesmery also testified that Tanisha had disclosed to her that the respondent mother told Tanisha and Alyson that they needed to lose weight so the respondent mother could sell pictures of them online. 8 The court also admitted statements that Alizabeth made during her foren- sic interview under the medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule; Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (5); the propriety of which we discuss in part II of this opinion. 9 Section 8-9 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides: ‘‘A statement that is not admissible under any of the foregoing exceptions is admissible if the court

2021Id., 60 .

2021The damages award on remand was improper only insofar as the trial court ordered H to disgorge $50,000 in consulting fees paid pursuant to the consulting contract: contrary to H’s claim, the court’s finding that H did not perform substantial work before being hired by the plaintiff in 2013 that entitled him to the $150,000 finder’s fee was not clearly erroneous, as it was supported by portions of the hearing testimony and the court was free to resolve any inconsistency in the testimony by crediting only the portions that buttressed its findings; moreover, although the record did not support th

2020Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Ser- vices, LLC, 114 Conn. App. 671 , 680–81, 970 A.2d 807 (2009).

2020Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Ser- vices, LLC, 114 Conn. App. 671 , 680–81, 970 A.2d 807 (2009).

2019Id., at 734-35 , 147 A.3d 188 .

2019Id., at 734-35 , 147 A.3d 188 .

2018III The plaintiff next claims that "[t]he trial court misapplied Borkowski and Dan when it considered the ... § 46b-82 criteria." See Borkowski v. Borkowski , 228 Conn. 729 , 638 A.2d 1060 (1994), and Dan v. Dan , 315 Conn. 1 , 105 A.3d 118 (2014).

2018III The plaintiff next claims that "[t]he trial court misapplied Borkowski and Dan when it considered the ... § 46b-82 criteria." See Borkowski v. Borkowski , 228 Conn. 729 , 638 A.2d 1060 (1994), and Dan v. Dan , 315 Conn. 1 , 105 A.3d 118 (2014).

2018As it was impossible to divine the basis for the court's decision from its 'postcard order,' and because the plaintiff could not be faulted for the inadequate record, we remanded the case for a new hearing." (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) Grover v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 183 Conn. App. at 806 n.1, 194 A.3d 316 (declining to grant petitioner's request for new habeas trial).

2018As it was impossible to divine the basis for the court's decision from its 'postcard order,' and because the plaintiff could not be faulted for the inadequate record, we remanded the case for a new hearing." (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) Grover v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 183 Conn. App. at 806 n.1, 194 A.3d 316 (declining to grant petitioner's request for new habeas trial).

2015Consistent with our holding in State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 , 129–30, 794 A.2d 506 (adopting aggregate package theory of sen- tencing), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 902 , 123 S. Ct. 224 , 154 L.

2015Consistent with our holding in State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 , 129–30, 794 A.2d 506 (adopting aggregate package theory of sen- tencing), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 902 , 123 S. Ct. 224 , 154 L.

2015Consistent with our holding in State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 , 129–30, 794 A.2d 506 (adopting aggregate package theory of sen- tencing), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 902 , 123 S. Ct. 224 , 154 L.

2015Consistent with our holding in State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 , 129–30, 794 A.2d 506 (adopting aggregate package theory of sen- tencing), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 902 , 123 S. Ct. 224 , 154 L.

2012The proper remedy under these circumstances [was] to remand the case for a new hearing to afford the trial court an opportunity to determine damages with due consideration of the lost volume seller theory and to make factual findings to that end, after which a reviewing court properly [could] determine whether the trial court's factual findings and its conclusions concerning the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled [were] supported by the record." Id., at 571 , 833 A.2d 891 .

2012The proper remedy under these circumstances [was] to remand the case for a new hearing to afford the trial court an opportunity to determine damages with due consideration of the lost volume seller theory and to make factual findings to that end, after which a reviewing court properly [could] determine whether the trial court's factual findings and its conclusions concerning the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled [were] supported by the record." Id., at 571 , 833 A.2d 891 .

2012Id., at 58 , 844 A.2d 855 . [7] As this court recently has reiterated, "we should be solicitous to pro se [parties] and construe their pleadings liberally in light of the limited legal knowledge [that] they possess." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Markley v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 301 Conn. 56, 74 , 23 A.3d 668 (2011). [8] I note, preliminarily, that the present action is not predicated on the contention that the defendants negligently failed to assert a claim—in this case, a claim challenging the trial court's finding with respect to the $2.9 million diminution of the marital e

2012Id., at 58 , 844 A.2d 855 . [7] As this court recently has reiterated, "we should be solicitous to pro se [parties] and construe their pleadings liberally in light of the limited legal knowledge [that] they possess." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Markley v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 301 Conn. 56, 74 , 23 A.3d 668 (2011). [8] I note, preliminarily, that the present action is not predicated on the contention that the defendants negligently failed to assert a claim—in this case, a claim challenging the trial court's finding with respect to the $2.9 million diminution of the marital e

2012Id., at 58 , 844 A.2d 855 . [7] As this court recently has reiterated, "we should be solicitous to pro se [parties] and construe their pleadings liberally in light of the limited legal knowledge [that] they possess." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Markley v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 301 Conn. 56, 74 , 23 A.3d 668 (2011). [8] I note, preliminarily, that the present action is not predicated on the contention that the defendants negligently failed to assert a claim—in this case, a claim challenging the trial court's finding with respect to the $2.9 million diminution of the marital e

2012Id., at 58 , 844 A.2d 855 . [7] As this court recently has reiterated, "we should be solicitous to pro se [parties] and construe their pleadings liberally in light of the limited legal knowledge [that] they possess." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Markley v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 301 Conn. 56, 74 , 23 A.3d 668 (2011). [8] I note, preliminarily, that the present action is not predicated on the contention that the defendants negligently failed to assert a claim—in this case, a claim challenging the trial court's finding with respect to the $2.9 million diminution of the marital e