reviewing claim in Connecticut

2025Relevant to this appeal, subdivision (4) of § 52-418 (a) provides that an arbitration award shall be vacated ‘‘if the arbitrators have exceeded their pow- ers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.’’ ‘‘[A] claim that the arbitrators have ‘exceeded their powers’ may be established under § 52- 418 in either one of two ways: (1) the award fails to conform to the submission, or, in other words, falls outside the scope of the submission; or (2) the arbitra- tors manifestly disregarded the law.’’ Harty v. Cantor Fitzger

2025Relevant to this appeal, subdivision (4) of § 52-418 (a) provides that an arbitration award shall be vacated ‘‘if the arbitrators have exceeded their pow- ers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.’’ ‘‘[A] claim that the arbitrators have ‘exceeded their powers’ may be established under § 52- 418 in either one of two ways: (1) the award fails to conform to the submission, or, in other words, falls outside the scope of the submission; or (2) the arbitra- tors manifestly disregarded the law.’’ Harty v. Cantor Fitzger

2005The standard for reviewing a claim that the award does not conform to the submission requires what we have termed “in effect, de novo judicial review.” State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL-CIO, 265 Conn. 771, 789 , 830 A.2d 729 (2003).

2005The standard for reviewing a claim that the award does not conform to the submission requires what we have termed “in effect, de novo judicial review.” State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL-CIO, 265 Conn. 771, 789 , 830 A.2d 729 (2003).

2023As we previously indicated, Ahmed does not assert a claim of manifest disregard of the law on appeal. ‘‘If the parties have agreed in the underlying contract that their disputes shall be resolved by arbitration, the arbitration clause in the contract is a written submission to arbitration.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lemma v. York & Chapel, Corp., 204 Conn. App. 471, 494 , 254 A.3d 1020 (2021). ‘‘The standard for reviewing a claim that the award does not conform to the submis- sion requires what we have termed in effect, de novo judicial review. . . .

2018We disagree and determine that the plaintiff sufficiently preserved this claim pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5. "[B]ecause our review is limited to matters in the record, we ... will not address issues not decided by the trial court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C. , 252 Conn. 153 , 171, 745 A.2d 178 (2000).

2018We disagree and determine that the plaintiff sufficiently preserved this claim pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5. "[B]ecause our review is limited to matters in the record, we ... will not address issues not decided by the trial court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C. , 252 Conn. 153 , 171, 745 A.2d 178 (2000).

2018Any conduct that would lead a reasonable [person] knowing all the circumstances to the conclusion that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned is a basis for the judge's disqualification." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos C. , 165 Conn. App. 195 , 207, 138 A.3d 1090 , cert. denied, 322 Conn. 906 , 140 A.3d 977 (2016).

2018Any conduct that would lead a reasonable [person] knowing all the circumstances to the conclusion that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned is a basis for the judge's disqualification." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos C. , 165 Conn. App. 195 , 207, 138 A.3d 1090 , cert. denied, 322 Conn. 906 , 140 A.3d 977 (2016).

2018Any conduct that would lead a reasonable [person] knowing all the circumstances to the conclusion that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned is a basis for the judge's disqualification." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos C. , 165 Conn. App. 195 , 207, 138 A.3d 1090 , cert. denied, 322 Conn. 906 , 140 A.3d 977 (2016).

2018Any conduct that would lead a reasonable [person] knowing all the circumstances to the conclusion that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned is a basis for the judge's disqualification." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos C. , 165 Conn. App. 195 , 207, 138 A.3d 1090 , cert. denied, 322 Conn. 906 , 140 A.3d 977 (2016).

2009See Simone v. Miller, 91 Conn. App. 98 , 107 n.3, 881 A.2d 397 (2005); Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321 , 329 n.5, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995).

2009See Simone v. Miller, 91 Conn. App. 98 , 107 n.3, 881 A.2d 397 (2005); Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321 , 329 n.5, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995).

2008The standard for reviewing a claim of deliberate disobedience is different because “such misconduct involves prejudice to the entire judicial system, in addition to prejudice to the defendant. ... [A] new trial ordered because of a prosecutor’s deliberate violation of trial court rulings is ordered pursuant to this court’s supervisory powers, rather than to remedy the violation of the defendant’s due process rights.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. 11 The following colloquy occurred during the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant: “Q.

2005We are aware of no case in which this court has characterized a defendant’s claim of substantial prejudice due to the admission of cumulative or overlapping constancy testimony as constitutional in nature. 10 In State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23, 37 , 770 A.2d 908 (2001), the defendant, Alex Kelly, claimed that the trial court had abused its discretion in permitting eight constancy *559 of accusation witnesses to testify for the state. 11 In our discussion of the standard for reviewing this claim, we stated: “It is a fundamental rule of appellate review of evidentiary rulings that if [the] error is

2005We are aware of no case in which this court has characterized a defendant’s claim of substantial prejudice due to the admission of cumulative or overlapping constancy testimony as constitutional in nature. 10 In State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23, 37 , 770 A.2d 908 (2001), the defendant, Alex Kelly, claimed that the trial court had abused its discretion in permitting eight constancy *559 of accusation witnesses to testify for the state. 11 In our discussion of the standard for reviewing this claim, we stated: “It is a fundamental rule of appellate review of evidentiary rulings that if [the] error is

1999The standard for reviewing this claim is set forth in State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 514-18 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996) (holding that alleged claim of prosecutorial misconduct failed to satisfy third prong of Golding).

1999The standard for reviewing this claim is set forth in State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 514-18 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996) (holding that alleged claim of prosecutorial misconduct failed to satisfy third prong of Golding).

1999The standard for reviewing this claim is set forth in State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 514-18 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996) (holding that alleged claim of prosecutorial misconduct failed to satisfy third prong of Golding).

1999The standard for reviewing this claim is set forth in State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 514-18 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996) (holding that alleged claim of prosecutorial misconduct failed to satisfy third prong of Golding).

1993Intelisano v. Greenwell, 155 Conn. 436, 450 , 232 A.2d 490 (1967); Towhill v. Kane, 147 Conn. 191, 193 , 158 A.2d 251 (1960).

1993Intelisano v. Greenwell, 155 Conn. 436, 450 , 232 A.2d 490 (1967); Towhill v. Kane, 147 Conn. 191, 193 , 158 A.2d 251 (1960).

1993Intelisano v. Greenwell, 155 Conn. 436, 450 , 232 A.2d 490 (1967); Towhill v. Kane, 147 Conn. 191, 193 , 158 A.2d 251 (1960).

1993Intelisano v. Greenwell, 155 Conn. 436, 450 , 232 A.2d 490 (1967); Towhill v. Kane, 147 Conn. 191, 193 , 158 A.2d 251 (1960).

1985Where, however, error is claimed “in submitting to the jury one of the specifications relating to [a] cause of action, a general verdict will not cure the error”; Novak v. Anderson, 178 Conn. 506, 508 , 423 A.2d 147 (1979); or preclude this court from reviewing the error claimed.

1985Where, however, error is claimed “in submitting to the jury one of the specifications relating to [a] cause of action, a general verdict will not cure the error”; Novak v. Anderson, 178 Conn. 506, 508 , 423 A.2d 147 (1979); or preclude this court from reviewing the error claimed.