necessary predicate claim in Connecticut

2000A necessary predicate to this rule of construction, however, is a determination that the terms of the insurance policy are indeed ambiguous. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Springdale Donuts, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co. , 247 Conn. 801 , 805-06 , 724 A.2d 1117 (1999).

2000A necessary predicate to this rule of construction, however, is a determination that the terms of the insurance policy are indeed ambiguous. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Springdale Donuts, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co. , 247 Conn. 801 , 805-06 , 724 A.2d 1117 (1999).

2026Even if the defendant is correct that the police had an oppor- tunity to attempt to obtain an identification prior to the time that DeSantis shared the newspaper article with Mongero, such inaction by the state did not taint the identification that occurred by means of a private actor. “[I]t is well established that conduct that may fairly be characterized as state action is a necessary predicate to a challenge under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution.” Id., 45 .

2002C First Identification The defendant claims that Robinson's identification as the defendant was being led out of 300 Winthrop Avenue "was the product of an impermissible show-up identification procedure. . . ." (Defendant's Motion, p. 1.) Specifically, the defendant contends that once the police laid their hands upon him, they committed an impermissible state action that violated his due process rights under the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution. "[I]t is well established that conduct that may fairly be characterized as state action is a necessary predicate to a challenge under

2008If an identification of a defendant is done spontaneously and is not arranged by the police, the identification is not tainted by state action and due process rights are not violated.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 59 Conn. App. 762, 766 , 757 A.2d 689 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 924 , 767 A.2d 99 (2001). “ [E]ven if the defendant’s claim has no constitutional underpinning, [however,] the criteria established for determining the admissibility of identifications in the due process context are appropriate guidelines by which to determine the admissibil

2005If an identification of a defendant is done spontaneously and is not arranged by the police, the identification is not tainted by state action and due process rights are not violated.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 59 Conn. App. 762, 766 , 757 A.2d 689 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 924 , 767 A.2d 99 (2001).

2008If an identification of a defendant is done spontaneously and is not arranged by the police, the identification is not tainted by state action and due process rights are not violated.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 59 Conn. App. 762, 766 , 757 A.2d 689 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 924 , 767 A.2d 99 (2001). “ [E]ven if the defendant’s claim has no constitutional underpinning, [however,] the criteria established for determining the admissibility of identifications in the due process context are appropriate guidelines by which to determine the admissibil

2005If an identification of a defendant is done spontaneously and is not arranged by the police, the identification is not tainted by state action and due process rights are not violated.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 59 Conn. App. 762, 766 , 757 A.2d 689 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 924 , 767 A.2d 99 (2001).

2008If an identification of a defendant is done spontaneously and is not arranged by the police, the identification is not tainted by state action and due process rights are not violated.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 59 Conn. App. 762, 766 , 757 A.2d 689 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 924 , 767 A.2d 99 (2001). “ [E]ven if the defendant’s claim has no constitutional underpinning, [however,] the criteria established for determining the admissibility of identifications in the due process context are appropriate guidelines by which to determine the admissibil

2008If an identification of a defendant is done spontaneously and is not arranged by the police, the identification is not tainted by state action and due process rights are not violated.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 59 Conn. App. 762, 766 , 757 A.2d 689 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 924 , 767 A.2d 99 (2001). “ [E]ven if the defendant’s claim has no constitutional underpinning, [however,] the criteria established for determining the admissibility of identifications in the due process context are appropriate guidelines by which to determine the admissibil

1997Co. of Pennsylvania, 231 Conn. 756, 770 , 653 A.2d 122 (1995). “ ‘A necessary predicate to this rule of construction, however, is a determination that the terms of the [exclusion clause] are indeed ambiguous.’ ” Kelly v. Figueiredo, 223 Conn. 31, 37 , 610 A.2d 1296 (1992).

1997Co. of Pennsylvania, 231 Conn. 756, 770 , 653 A.2d 122 (1995). “ ‘A necessary predicate to this rule of construction, however, is a determination that the terms of the [exclusion clause] are indeed ambiguous.’ ” Kelly v. Figueiredo, 223 Conn. 31, 37 , 610 A.2d 1296 (1992).

2010See, e.g., Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390, 403-404 , 944 A.2d 925 (2008) (addressing question of whether provision of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., imposes same duty on employers to provide reasonable accommoda tion to disabled individuals that is required under federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., despite fact that parties were in agreement for purposes of appeal that same duty applied, “[b]ecause this question is an essential predicate to our analysis of the plaintiffs claim in the present

2010See, e.g., Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390, 403-404 , 944 A.2d 925 (2008) (addressing question of whether provision of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., imposes same duty on employers to provide reasonable accommoda tion to disabled individuals that is required under federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., despite fact that parties were in agreement for purposes of appeal that same duty applied, “[b]ecause this question is an essential predicate to our analysis of the plaintiffs claim in the present

2010See, e.g., Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390, 403-404 , 944 A.2d 925 (2008) (addressing question of whether provision of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., imposes same duty on employers to provide reasonable accommoda tion to disabled individuals that is required under federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., despite fact that parties were in agreement for purposes of appeal that same duty applied, “[b]ecause this question is an essential predicate to our analysis of the plaintiffs claim in the present

2010See, e.g., Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390, 403-404 , 944 A.2d 925 (2008) (addressing question of whether provision of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., imposes same duty on employers to provide reasonable accommoda tion to disabled individuals that is required under federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., despite fact that parties were in agreement for purposes of appeal that same duty applied, “[b]ecause this question is an essential predicate to our analysis of the plaintiffs claim in the present

2010See, e.g., Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390, 403-404 , 944 A.2d 925 (2008) (addressing question of whether provision of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., imposes same duty on employers to provide reasonable accommoda tion to disabled individuals that is required under federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., despite fact that parties were in agreement for purposes of appeal that same duty applied, “[b]ecause this question is an essential predicate to our analysis of the plaintiffs claim in the present

2010See, e.g., Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390, 403-404 , 944 A.2d 925 (2008) (addressing question of whether provision of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., imposes same duty on employers to provide reasonable accommoda tion to disabled individuals that is required under federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., despite fact that parties were in agreement for purposes of appeal that same duty applied, “[b]ecause this question is an essential predicate to our analysis of the plaintiffs claim in the present

2002The fact that the parties advocate different meanings of the [insurance policy] does not necessitate a conclusion that the language is ambiguous." See also; QSP, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 256 Conn. 343 , 351-52 (2001); O'Brien v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co., 235 Conn. 837 , 842-43 (1996).

2002The fact that the parties advocate different meanings of the [insurance policy] does not necessitate a conclusion that the language is ambiguous." See also; QSP, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 256 Conn. 343 , 351-52 (2001); O'Brien v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co., 235 Conn. 837 , 842-43 (1996).

2000The due process clause requires the exclusion of evidence concerning a pretrial identification when the identification procedure used “was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of an irreparable misidentification.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Anderson, 178 Conn. 287, 291 , 422 A.2d 323 (1979). 2 “[I]t is well established that conduct that may fairly be characterized as state action is a necessary predicate to a challenge under the due process clause . . . .” State v. Holliman, 214 Conn. 38, 45 , 570 A.2d 680 (1990).

2000The due process clause requires the exclusion of evidence concerning a pretrial identification when the identification procedure used “was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of an irreparable misidentification.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Anderson, 178 Conn. 287, 291 , 422 A.2d 323 (1979). 2 “[I]t is well established that conduct that may fairly be characterized as state action is a necessary predicate to a challenge under the due process clause . . . .” State v. Holliman, 214 Conn. 38, 45 , 570 A.2d 680 (1990).

1997Co. of Pennsylvania, 231 Conn. 756, 770 , 653 A.2d 122 (1995). “ ‘A necessary predicate to this rule of construction, however, is a determination that the terms of the [exclusion clause] are indeed ambiguous.’ ” Kelly v. Figueiredo, 223 Conn. 31, 37 , 610 A.2d 1296 (1992).

1997Co. of Pennsylvania, 231 Conn. 756, 770 , 653 A.2d 122 (1995). “ ‘A necessary predicate to this rule of construction, however, is a determination that the terms of the [exclusion clause] are indeed ambiguous.’ ” Kelly v. Figueiredo, 223 Conn. 31, 37 , 610 A.2d 1296 (1992).

1991Hammer v. Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co., 214 Conn. 573, 583-84 , 573 A.2d 699 (1990).

1991Hammer v. Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co., 214 Conn. 573, 583-84 , 573 A.2d 699 (1990).