(a) The land, buildings, furnishings and improvements of the Governor's official residence shall be maintained by the Commissioner of Administrative Services and food, supplies and staff for such residence shall be provided by the commissioner at the expense of the state.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, for any foundation, as defined in section 4-37e, and established for the purpose of assisting the Commissioner of Administrative Services in performing the duties described in subsection (a) of this section, the following information shall be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of chapter 14: (1) The annual income and individual expenditures and contributions in excess of two hundred dollars of such foundation, (2) the names of the officers of any such foundation, and (3) the names of any state employees acting on behalf of, or working for such foundation.
(1949 Rev., S. 104; March, 1950, S. 33d; P.A. 77-614, S. 73, 610; P.A. 87-496, S. 7, 110; P.A. 88-1, S. 2, 13; P.A. 04-37, S. 1; P.A. 11-51, S. 44.)
History: P.A. 77-614 replaced “public works commissioner” with “commissioner of administrative services”; P.A. 87-496 substituted “public works commissioner” for “administrative services commissioner”; P.A. 88-1 required food, supplies and staff for the residence to be provided by the commissioner at state expense; P.A. 04-37 designated existing section as Subsec. (a), and added new Subsec. (b) re disclosure of income, expenses, contributions, officers and certain state employee names by foundations established to assist the Commissioner of Public Works in maintaining the Governor's residence, effective April 20, 2004; pursuant to P.A. 11-51, “Commissioner of Public Works” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Administrative Services”, effective July 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case:
State v. Dijmarescu, 189 A.3d 111 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
State v. Dijmarescu, 189 A.3d 111 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 7× “Specifically, the defendant argues that the court improperly granted the motion to withdraw because the notice and good cause requirements set forth in Practice Book § 3-10 (a) were not met. Because we determine that, under the circumstances presented here, the defendant had no…”
State v. Williams, 926 A.2d 7 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 2× “We must distinguish between a substantial and timely request for new counsel pursued in good faith, and one made for insufficient cause on the eve or in the middle of trial.”
State v. Patavino, 724 A.2d 514 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 3× “The cause claimed here is that the trial court intimidated defense counsel into ineffectiveness by threatening him with contempt. Counsel also stated that he felt that he was not being allowed *608 to state his reasons for asserting objections and was afraid to object because he…”
State v. Madera, 503 A.2d 136 (Conn. 1985).
“It appears quite unlikely, nevertheless, that any occasion will arise in this case to require a determination of the constitutional issues raised by the defendant.”
State v. Jenkins, 800 A.2d 1200 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
“Practice Book § 3-10 requires that a court find good cause to grant a motion to withdraw.”
Phillipe v. Thomas, 489 A.2d 1056 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985).
“) § 3-10. In contracts as in tort cases, “[t]he test is external, not subjective; that is, the question is how would a person of ordinary prudence in such a situation have behaved, not how did the defendant in fact behave.”
State v. William B., 822 A.2d 265 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
“rv The defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to recuse.”
Fernandez v. Comm'r of Corr., 859 A.2d 948 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
“1 In further support of his argument, the petitioner notes that, in his direct appeal, our Supreme Court concluded that his defense counsel had neglected to file a written motion to withdraw and therefore violated Practice Book § 632, now § 3-10. He also notes that the…”
State v. Bigelow, 994 A.2d 204 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
“On May 7, 2007, Solak filed a motion to withdraw as the defendant’s counsel pursuant to Practice Book § 3-10. He stated that the attorney-client relationship had broken down irretrievably, such that he could not represent the defendant effectively.”
State v. Robert H., 802 A.2d 152 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
“The court denied defense counsel's motion. At the sentencing hearing, the court reminded the defendant that his trial counsel continued to represent him and that it had denied counsel’s motion to withdraw.”
Oliphant v. Warden, State Prison, 80 A.3d 597 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to Practice Book § 3-10 (a), “[n]o motion for withdrawal of appearance shall be granted unless good cause is shown and until the judicial authority is satisfied that .”
State v. Marsala, 755 A.2d 965 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000).
“Practice Book § 3-10 requires that a court find good cause to grant a motion to withdraw.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-10(b): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.