Volume 343 — Connecticut Reports

The petitioner, who had been convicted of the crimes of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his rights to due process were violated because, at the time of his criminal trial, he suffered from severe intellectual disabilities and physio- logical and mental health afflictions that rendered him incompetent to stand trial. He further alleged that, during his criminal trial, neither his trial counsel, the state, nor the trial court sought a competency examination for him, in violation of statute (§ 54-56d). At his criminal trial and on direct appeal to the Appellate Court, which upheld his conviction, the petitioner did not raise any claim regarding his compe- tency to stand trial. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, filed a return in response to the petitioner's habeas petition, asserting that the petitioner had procedurally defaulted because his due process claims were not raised during his criminal trial or on direct appeal and that he could not establish cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural defaults. The petitioner filed a reply, in which he asserted that the defense of procedural default did not apply to his due process claims, that he could not have raised those claims previously because of his developmental and intellectual disabilities, and, in the alternative, that he could establish cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural defaults. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss, and the habeas court granted that motion and rendered judgment dismissing the habeas petition. The habeas court determined that the petition and reply were deficient because an allegation of incompetency was legally insufficient to establish cause and prejudice. Accordingly, the habeas court con- cluded that the petitioner's due process claims were procedurally defaulted and that he had failed to allege legally cognizable cause and prejudice to overcome the defaults. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Court, which upheld the habeas court's judgment. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the Appellate Court incorrectly had concluded that the procedural default doctrine applies to competency claims. Held: 1. The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the petitioner's competency claim was subject to the procedural default doctrine, as the prudential interests in finality and uniformity underlying that doctrine militated against carving out an exception to it for competency claims: application of the procedural default doctrine to competency claims encourages the timely assertion of those claims when the trial court is in the best position to determine competency and to provide a timely remedy, and the passage of time could result in the potential for loss of evidence or the improvement or deterioration of the petitioner's condition, and could hinder a habeas court's ability to make a meaningful determination regarding a petitioner's competency at the time of his criminal trial; moreover, this court has emphasized the importance of applying the cause and prejudice standard consistently to all procedural defaults and has recognized only two exceptions to the application of the procedural default doctrine, including for claims of actual innocence, and the rea- sons that led this court to carve out those exceptions were not applicable in the context of competency claims; furthermore, this court declined to follow federal cases that have held, pursuant to the waiver rule of Wainwright v. Sykes (433 U.S. 72), that procedural default does not apply to substantive competency claims, as the great weight of federal and Connecticut habeas jurisprudence since Wainwright has transiti- oned from a waiver standard to a forfeiture standard for procedural default, and the procedural default standard in Connecticut is more akin to forfeiture, which addresses the petitioner's timing in raising a constitutional claim rather than the mental state driving the petitioner's decision to waive such a claim. 2. The Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the petitioner had failed to allege sufficient cause and prejudice to overcome his procedural defaults: a. This court rejected the Appellate Court's conclusion that mental incom- petency is internal, rather than external, to the petitioner and, thus, that a claim of incompetency is legally insufficient to satisfy the cause prong of the cause and prejudice standard: the term ''internal'' is defined as something fairly attributable to the petitioner, whether cause is internal presumes a level of participation by the petitioner in his defense, and the duty that § 54-56d (c) imposes on trial counsel, the state, and the trial court to raise the issue of competency indicates that incompetency is external to the petitioner; moreover, there was a lack of precedential support for the respondent's claim that, on collateral review, procedurally defaulted due process competency claims must be brought with an accompanying ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as habeas petition- ers are not precluded from raising freestanding competency claims, when, as in the present case, an objective factor is external to the defense yet still tangential to effective assistance of counsel. b. The habeas court incorrectly determined that the petitioner had failed to allege sufficient prejudice to survive the respondent's motion to dis- miss: the petitioner sufficiently alleged that, if the trial court had him evaluated, his several cognitive limitations and significant physiological and mental health afflictions would have established that he was incom- petent to stand trial, was not restorable to competency and, therefore, would not have been tried and convicted; accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded so that the petitioner could produce evidence to support his claim and to rebut the defense of procedural default. Argued October 18, 2021—officially released April 19, 2022

Pursuant to statute (§ 46a-64c (a) (1)), it is a discriminatory practice ''[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of . . . lawful source of income . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 46a-64c (a) (3)), it is a discriminatory practice ''[t]o make, print or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on . . . lawful source of income . . . or an intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination.'' The plaintiff sought to recover damages for alleged housing discrimination in connection with certain statements that the defendant H, a real estate salesperson, made regarding the plaintiff's participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. H served as an independent contrac- tor for the named defendant, R Co., a real estate broker. R Co., through H, entered into a listing contract with the defendant V for the exclusive right to lease an apartment owned by V and his wife. Thereafter, the plaintiff, through her real estate agent, B, submitted an application and offer to lease the apartment. After receiving the documents and speaking with V, who wanted the apartment rented by April 1, 2017, H notified B that they were ''all set'' for a lease commencing on that date. B then sent H blank section 8 paperwork to accompany the plaintiff's application. H and B then proceeded to exchange e-mails and text mes- sages, in which H repeatedly indicated that she was not aware that the plaintiff would be using a section 8 voucher, that she would have to speak to V, that the decision was up to V, and that she was not sure if V would want to wait for the section 8 approval process. H eventually texted B that V had received a competing offer for the apartment, and, several hours later, H texted B that V had accepted the competing offer. The plaintiff alleged that H violated § 46a-64c (a) (1) and (3) by denying her the opportunity to rent the apartment on the basis of her lawful source of income and by making statements that indicated any prefer- ence, limitation, or discrimination on the basis of lawful source of income, and, in addition, that R Co., V, and V's wife were vicariously liable for H's statements. After a trial to the court, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendants, concluding that the plaintiff had failed to prove unlawful discrimination. Specifically, with respect to the plaintiff's claim under § 46a-64c (a) (3), the court determined that H's statements would not convey to an ordinary listener a rejection of or otherwise disfavor a section 8 tenancy. On the plaintiff's appeal from the trial court's judgment, held: 1. The trial court incorrectly concluded that H's statements did not indicate any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on lawful source of income, in violation of § 46a-64c (a) (3): a. Contrary to the plaintiff's claim, the trial court properly applied the ordinary listener standard in determining whether H's statements con- veyed an impermissibly discriminatory preference: this court considered the statute's legislative history, as well as cases interpreting federal fair housing laws and the federal counterpart to § 46a-64c (a) (3), in particu- lar, and concluded that, when a notice, statement, or advertisement that allegedly violates § 46a-64c (a) (3) is plainly discriminatory on its face, courts need not examine the surrounding context or the speaker's intent to determine whether the statement indicates any impermissible prefer- ence, limitation, or discrimination to the ordinary listener, but, when such a notice, statement, or advertisement is not discriminatory on its face, courts may consider context and the intent of the speaker to aid in determining the way an ordinary listener would have interpreted it; in the present case, the trial court apparently concluded that H's statements were not facially discriminatory, and, because this court agreed with that determination, it was not improper for the trial court to consider the context of H's statements in determining whether they indicated any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on lawful source of income. b. The trial court's conclusion that H's statements would not have con- veyed to an ordinary listener an impermissible preference with respect to lawful source of income was clearly erroneous: there was overwhelming evidence in the trial court's factual findings that supported the plaintiff's housing discrimination claim, as, after indicating that the plaintiff was ''all set,'' H stated four separate times that she was not aware that the plaintiff intended to use a section 8 voucher to pay rent and that she was not sure whether V would want to wait, H had already made two of those statements before receiving the competing offer, meaning that she could not reasonably rely on the competing offer to explain her earlier statements, and, in context, H's statements could not reasonably be understood to mean anything other than that the plaintiff's intention to use her section 8 voucher to pay rent would be an obstacle to her lease application; moreover, the trial court's conclusion in favor of H undercut the broad protections afforded by § 46a-64c (a) (3), which is intended to protect against the psychic injury caused by discriminatory statements, especially in light of this state's public policy that landlords may not discriminate against housing applicants who use section 8 assis- tance and the legislature's manifest intent to afford low income families access to the rental housing market; in the present case, the plaintiff indicated that she was able to satisfy V's interest in an April 1, 2017 tenancy, any preference to avoid the administrative process the section 8 program involved was an impermissible consideration under both sub- divisions (1) and (3) of § 46a-64c (a), and this court was left with the definite and firm conviction that the trial court's conclusion that H's statements did not express a preference with respect to, or discriminate on the basis of, the plaintiff's lawful source of income was not simply an alternative yet permissible view of the evidence. 2. Although the trial court did not address the issue of vicarious liability, this court determined, as a matter of law, that R Co. was vicariously liable for H's statements but that V and his wife were not, and, accordingly, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case with direction to render judgment for the plaintiff as to liability against H and R Co. under § 46a-64c (a) (3) and for further proceedings to determine, inter alia, the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled: the parties stipulated, and the trial court found, that R Co. is a real estate broker and that H is R Co.'s independent contractor, and, because H acted on behalf of R Co. when she executed the listing contract with V and her statements were made in furtherance of that contract, R Co. was liable to the same extent as if H were its employee pursuant to the statute (§ 20-312a) governing the vicarious liability of real estate brokers; moreover, although V and his wife had an independent contractor rela- tionship with H, there was no evidence that the listing contract gave V any control over H, and, in the absence of any exception to the general rule that employers are not liable for the torts of their independent contractors, V and his wife were not vicariously liable for any of H's statements. Argued October 14, 2021—officially released April 19, 2022

Pursuant to statute (§ 29-28 (b)), certain officials or authorities may issue a state pistol permit to an applicant if the official or authority determines that such applicant is ''a suitable person to receive such permit,'' and ''[n]o . . . permit . . . shall be issued'' if the applicant ''(2) has been convicted of (A) a felony, or (B) on or after October 1, 1994, a violation of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a- 96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d [of the General Statutes] . . . .'' The defendant L, who had submitted a state pistol permit application with the plaintiff, the Stratford Police Department, appealed from the judgment of the trial court, which reversed the decision of the named defendant, the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, to order the issuance of such permit. The police department initially denied L's application on the basis of his prior conviction in New York of criminal possession of a controlled substance, namely, ketamine. The police department con- cluded that L's conviction for possession of ketamine in New York was equivalent to a conviction for possession of a controlled substance under a Connecticut statute (§ 21a-279 (c)), and, because § 29-28 (b) (2) (B) lists § 21a-279 as a crime that automatically disqualifies an applicant from receiving a pistol permit if the applicant had been convicted there- under, L was automatically disqualified from receiving a permit under § 29-28 (b). L then appealed to the board from the police department's denial of the permit. During an administrative hearing before the board, the police department changed its position and asserted that, although not a per se bar, L's New York conviction rendered him unsuitable to receive the permit under § 29-28 (b). During the hearing, the board questioned L regarding his suitability, focusing on the circumstances surrounding L's prior arrest and conviction in New York, L's history of ketamine use, and L's use of other drugs and alcohol. The board also questioned L regarding the answers he provided in his appellant question- naire, which he was required to submit to the board prior to the adminis- trative hearing. The board ultimately decided that L was suitable to receive a pistol permit and ordered that such a permit be issued. The police department then filed an administrative appeal with the trial court, which sustained the police department's appeal. On appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of the police department, held: 1. The trial court incorrectly concluded that § 29-28 (b) (2) (B) automatically disqualifies a state pistol permit applicant with an out-of-state conviction that is equivalent to a conviction under § 21a-279 from receiving such a permit, as only a felony conviction or a conviction of those misdemean- ors specifically enumerated in § 29-28 (b) (2) (B) constitutes a per se bar to obtaining a state pistol permit under § 29-28 (b): the legislature having previously used explicit language in other Connecticut statutes to incorporate equivalent out-of-state convictions, this court concluded that the absence of such language in § 29-28 (b) indicated that the legislature intended that a conviction for one or more of the eleven enumerated Connecticut offenses therein, but not a conviction for an equivalent offense, would operate as a per se bar to obtaining a permit; moreover, there was no merit to the police department's claim that reading § 29-28 (b) as barring permit applicants who have been convicted of one or more of the eleven enumerated offenses, and not their out- of-state equivalents, from receiving a pistol permit would lead to bizarre and unworkable results insofar as it would result in different treatment of individuals who pose the same risk to the public, as the legislature may reasonably have intended to treat in-state and out-of-state convictions differently and to have suitability determinations regarding out-of-state, nonfelony convictions be made on a case-by-case basis; furthermore, contrary to the police department's claim, certain language in the statute (§ 29-32) governing, inter alia, the revocation of existing pistol permits did not require this court to read § 29-28 (b) to incorporate equivalent misdemeanor convictions from extraterritorial courts of competent jurisdiction. 2. The trial court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the board, following the board's determination, after a full hearing, that L was a suitable person to obtain a state pistol permit, as this court could not say that the board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion in making that determination: the record indicated that the board considered and explicitly discussed the potential for the different treatment of out-of-state offenders and of those offenders convicted of similar crimes in Connecticut, the legislature's purpose in enacting § 29-28, and its own statutory interpretation analysis, and, although the trial court, on the same record, may have come to a different conclusion than that of the board, neither this court nor the trial court may substitute its own judgment for that of the board with respect to the weight of the evidence or questions of fact; moreover, there was no merit to the police department's claim that the board had abused its discretion in determining that L was suitable to obtain a permit insofar as his conduct, including the conduct that led to his drug conviction, his confusing response to a question in the board's appellant question- naire, and his inability to explain to the board his response in the questionnaire or to respond to simple inquiries during the hearing before the board, demonstrated that he should not be entrusted with a weapon, as the degree to which the board credited L's responses to its questions, L's candidness regarding the answers in his appellant questionnaire, and L's overall comportment and demeanor were not for the trial court or this court to second-guess. Argued December 16, 2021—officially released April 26, 2022

Pursuant to statute (§ 46a-58 (a)), ''[i]t shall be a discriminatory practice . . . for any person to subject, or cause to be subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United States, on account of . . . sex . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute ((Supp. 2012) § 46a-86 (b)), ''upon a finding of a discriminatory employment practice, the [human rights referee] may order the hiring or reinstatement of employees, with or without back pay . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute ((Supp. 2012) § 46a-86 (c)), ''upon a finding of a discriminatory practice prohibited by section 46a-58 . . . the [referee] shall determine the damage suffered by the complainant . . . as a result of such discriminatory practice and shall allow reasonable attorney's fees and costs.'' The named defendant, G, who is employed as a judicial marshal by the plaintiff, the Connecticut Judicial Branch, filed a complaint with the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in connec- tion with her allegations that another judicial marshal, M, had subjected her to severe and pervasive sexual harassment while they were stationed together at a particular courthouse. Specifically, G alleged that the branch discriminated against her on the basis of her gender by subjecting her to a hostile work environment, failing to investigate her allegations and to take remedial steps to protect her, and retaliating against her for making her complaint by reassigning her to courthouses farther from her residence. G claimed that the branch's misconduct violated the employment discrimination statute (§ 46a-60), as well as the general antidiscrimination statute, § 46a-58 (a), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), as a predicate for G's claim under § 46a-58 (a), insofar as § 46a-58 (a) includes within its ambit ''the deprivation of any rights . . . secured or protected by the . . . laws . . . of the United States . . . .'' During the administrative proceedings before the commis- sion, the branch issued a request for the production of all of G's medical records, but G produced nothing in response. The branch then objected when G indicated that she intended to call her therapist and psychologist as witnesses in support of her claim for emotional distress damages. In an off-the-record ruling, the commission's human rights referee apparently ruled that, if G intended to pursue anything other than a garden-variety emotional distress claim, she must provide copies of her medical records. Because G had not produced all of her records at the time of the hearing on her complaint, the referee ruled that she could introduce evidence in support of her claim for garden-variety emotional distress but not medical records or other treatment related evidence of emotional dis- tress damages. After the hearing, the referee found that G's claims were substantiated. In connection with the violation of § 46a-60, the referee awarded G back pay, as well as prejudgment and postjudgment interest on the back pay, pursuant to § 46a-86 (b). In connection with the violation of § 46a-58 (a), the referee awarded G attorney's fees and $50,000 in emotional distress damages pursuant to § 46a-86 (c). The referee also ordered that the branch ''give [G] the option of returning to the . . . courthouse'' to which she assigned before she reported the harassment. On appeal to the trial court, that court rejected the branch's claims that the commission was not authorized to award attorney's fees and emotional distress damages to victims of employment discrimination under either § 46a-58 (a) or § 46a-60 and that the award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest against the state under § 46a-86 (b) is barred by the state's sovereign immunity. Nonetheless, the trial court agreed with the branch's claim that the referee improperly awarded G emotional distress damages in light of her failure to produce her medical records, allegedly in violation of the referee's discovery orders, and, accordingly, vacated the award of emotional distress damages. The trial court also vacated the injunction requiring the branch to allow G the option of returning to the courthouse to which she previously had been assigned, concluding that the injunction was an abuse of discretion and not prop- erly tailored. From the judgment rendered thereon, the branch appealed and the commission cross appealed. Held: 1. The branch could not prevail on its claim that the trial court incorrectly had concluded that the commission was authorized to award emotional distress damages and attorney's fees in an employment discrimination action under the general antidiscrimination statute, § 46a-58 (a), and that statute's civil remedies provision, § 46a-86 (c): a. The commission did not exceed its authority under federal law by adjudicating a Title VII claim, that is, by holding a formal hearing to determine whether the branch had engaged in discriminatory practices in violation of Title VII: the United States Supreme Court previously had rejected the branch's argument that the federal statute (42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 5 (f)) that allows for the bringing of a judicial action to enforce Title VII authorizes only courts, and not administrative agencies, to formally resolve Title VII claims, and that argument was unavailing particularly in light of the fact that the commission does not purport to formally adjudicate Title VII claims but merely identifies discriminatory practices under Title VII for purposes of applying state law; moreover, the fact that the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission itself lacks the authority to formally adjudicate Title VII claims does not indicate an intention to bar state agencies from identifying Title VII violations for purposes of determining whether state law has been violated, as there was a strong congressional preference, acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court, pervasive in the legislative history of Title VII, and reflected in Title VII's work sharing scheme, for resolving matters at the state level that involve the concurrent violation of Title VII and state employment discrimination laws; furthermore, this court rejected the branch's argument that allowing a state fair employment practices agency, such as the commission, to find and penalize Title VII violations under state law would upset a carefully calibrated federal scheme that balances the availability of remedies with important procedural protec- tions and, instead, found persuasive the rationales of those federal courts that have considered the issue and concluded that, because § 46a-58 (a) explicitly adopts federal antidiscrimination law as part of the substantive conduct it regulates, when the commission finds a Title VII violation as the factual predicate to a violation of § 46a-58 (a), it does so as a matter of Connecticut law and, therefore, does not infringe on principles of federal supremacy. b. There was no merit to the branch's claim that, even if federal law does not bar the commission from awarding damages for Title VII viola- tions under §§ 46a-58 (a) and 46a-86 (c), the commission is precluded from doing so under state law, as construed by this court's prior case law: nothing in this court's precedent holding that state employment discrimination claims can be brought only under § 46a-60, the statute specifically dedicated to such claims, and not under § 46a-58 (a), the general antidiscrimination statute, indicated that the legislature intended to preclude the commission from awarding a remedy authorized by § 46a- 86 (c) for a violation of § 46a-58 (a) predicated on a discriminatory practice prohibited by federal law; moreover, in light of the sweeping language of §§ 46a-58 (a) and 46a-86 (c), as well as a recent amendment (P.A. 19-16, § 7) making economic damages and attorney's fees available to a party who prevails on a state law claim of employment discrimina- tion, this court refrained from reconsidering or extending that precedent, even though the legislative scheme may not create the most elegant framework for assigning different remedies to different discriminatory practices on the basis of the jurisdictional source of the injury. 2. The trial court incorrectly concluded that the state had waived its sover- eign immunity with respect to the recovery of prejudgment and postjudg- ment interest on awards under § 46a-86, and, accordingly, the referee's award of interest was vacated: this court followed the ''no-interest rule,'' as articulated by the federal courts and applied with equal force to the state under Connecticut law, pursuant to which, in the absence of an express waiver, the legislature is presumed not to have waived sovereign immunity with respect to prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and concluded that the state's waiver of sovereign immunity as to liability for civil rights violations under §§ 46a-58 (a) and 46a-60, and as to back pay and damages under § 46a-86 (b) and (c), did not constitute a waiver as to interest on such awards, as it was clear that the state has not expressly waived its immunity with respect to interest on such back pay and damages; moreover, the legislature did not waive sovereign immunity by necessary implication because, insofar as interest is not traditionally awarded as a part of damages, a statutory waiver of sover- eign immunity only as to damages does not, by force of necessary implication, waive the state's immunity as to interest. 3. The trial court incorrectly concluded that the referee should have pre- cluded G from recovering any emotional distress damages as a sanction for her refusal to produce her full medical records, and, because the referee improperly admitted certain testimony that went beyond mere garden-variety emotional distress, this court reversed the trial court's judgment with respect to the issue of emotional distress damages, and the case was ultimately remanded to the commission for a new hearing in damages: a. The trial court's decision with respect to G's claim for emotional distress was apparently based on its view that the referee, by restricting G to arguing for and recovering only garden-variety emotional distress damages, did not impose sufficiently stringent sanctions for what the trial court viewed as violations of a discovery order, and that conclusion was not supported by either the facts or the law: although G did not fully comply with the request for the production of her medical records, nothing in the record suggested that the referee issued an unconditional order requiring the production of the records, and G did not actually violate any discovery order, insofar as the referee essentially allowed her to opt either to produce her full medical records or to decline to do so and to seek only garden-variety emotional distress damages; moreover, the governing regulations afford the referee broad discretion over the sanctions to be imposed for violations of discovery orders, and, viewing the referee's order as such a sanction, this court concluded that the trial court failed to afford appropriate deference to the referee's oversight of the discovery process by effectively reversing the referee's sanction on that ground that it was too lenient; furthermore, it was clear that the referee did not consider G's conduct to be egregious or in bad faith, especially in light of G's efforts to find a compromise that would satisfy the branch's production requests while preserving her medical privacy. b. The referee nonetheless abused her discretion by admitting certain testimony that went beyond mere garden-variety emotional distress, seemingly in violation of the referee's own rulings, and this court could not conclude that that error was harmless: on at least four occasions, and over the branch's objections, the referee allowed G or her husband to testify as to G's use of various over-the-counter and prescription medications to treat her insomnia and anxiety arising from the harass- ment, and such testimony was not merely evidence of garden-variety emotional distress but, instead, placed G's medical history at issue; more- over, only one of those references was struck from the record, the referee appeared to believe that the statements were potentially admissible and relevant, and admitting the challenged testimony when the branch had been denied access to G's medical records was an abuse of discretion; furthermore, insofar as the referee made several findings of fact regarding G's need for medication, this court could not conclude that the improperly admitted evidence did not factor into the referee's damages calculation. 4. The trial court improperly vacated the injunction requiring that the branch give G the option of returning to the courthouse at which she was originally stationed, as none of the concerns expressed by that court was sufficient to warrant vacating the injunction as a matter of law, and the appropriate remedy was to remand the matter to the commission for additional briefing, to hold a new hearing, and to potentially craft a more narrowly tailored injunction: § 46a-86 (a) clearly grants the com- mission the authority to issue reasonable injunctive relief tailored to eliminating discriminatory practices and their effects, and, although M's retirement in 2020 eliminated the possibility that G and M might be assigned to the same courthouse, the primary purpose of reinstating an employee who is transferred after complaining of sexual harassment, such as G, is to vindicate the important public policy against punishing victims who report abuse, and that purpose was served by the referee's order regardless of M's retirement; moreover, even though the referee did not expressly find that G's transfers were retaliatory in nature, the referee's factual findings overwhelmingly pointed to a retaliatory animus and an implicit determination that the transfers were pretextual, and the trial court's assumption that G was not transferred on the basis of retaliatory intent was therefore contrary to the referee's factual findings; furthermore, if the branch did seek to retaliate or to resolve the pattern of harassment by transferring G to a less convenient location while allowing M to remain at the courthouse where the harassment occurred, it was irrelevant that, under ordinary circumstances, the branch, as the employer, has the discretion where to assign judicial marshals, and allowing G to return to her original workplace was the preferred means of vindicating the policy against punishing victims who report abuse, and, to the extent that logistical considerations and the branch's opera- tional needs are relevant to fashioning proper relief, this court instructed that, before ordering the branch to reinstate G, on remand, the referee must consider factors such as whether the branch's previous relocation of G to other courthouses departed from the norms applied to other marshals, whether the impact of keeping G at the original courthouse on the operational needs of the branch outweighs the benefit to G of being assigned to a courthouse closer to her home, and whether reinstat- ing G will require the reassignment of other employees; in addition, insofar as the trial court had been concerned about the apparently unbounded nature of the injunction issued by the referee, this court instructed that, on remand, the referee should clarify the scope and duration of the injunction, whether the extent of the branch's misconduct and the balancing of the equities warrant a permanent injunction preclud- ing the branch from reassigning G, if a permanent injunction is not warrant, at what point or under what circumstances the injunction will expire, and whether, during the course of the injunction, the branch may continue to assign G to other courthouses on a short-term basis consistent with its operational needs. Argued January 15, 2021—officially released April 26, 2022

Following the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the defendant filed a motion to open the dissolution judgment, claiming that the plaintiff had committed fraud during the dissolution proceedings by submitting a false response to an interrogatory in which she denied the existence of a sexual relationship with another man during the parties' marriage and by falsely testifying at trial that the defendant had physically assaulted her. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the defendant's allegations of fraud, even if proven to be true, would not have altered the disposition of the parties' divorce. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which upheld the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to open. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to open: even if there were merit to the defendant's contention that the dissolution court was factually mistaken about the true nature of the plaintiff's extramarital affair, such a mistake could not have been caused by the allegedly fraudulent response to the interrogatory, as the defendant acknowledged, in his prior, direct appeal from the dissolution judgment, that the plaintiff had confessed to the dissolution court that her response to the interrogatory in which she denied the existence of a sexual relationship with another man during the marriage was a lie, and, therefore, it was reasonable to infer that this falsehood did not impact the dissolution court's judgment; moreover, the defendant's claim of fraud with respect to the plaintiff's allegation of assault was unavail- ing, as the dissolution court found that the plaintiff's account of the alleged assault lacked credibility, and, accordingly, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that additional evidence about the alleged assault would not likely have altered the result of the parties' divorce. Submitted on briefs February 25—officially released May 3, 2022

Convicted of the crime of sexual assault in the first degree, the defendant appealed. The defendant, a non-English speaker who required the use of an interpreter, did not testify in his own defense at trial. The prosecutor, before deciding whether to rest the state's case, indicated that she would proceed directly to closing argument if the defense was not going to introduce any evidence. Defense counsel replied that he had had exten- sive conversations with the defendant regarding his decision whether to testify and that it was unlikely that the defense would introduce evidence, but that he would like to confer with the defendant one more time. The court granted a short recess to allow defense counsel the opportunity to confer with the defendant. Thereafter, defense counsel informed the trial court that the defendant would not testify, and the defendant did not express any disagreement or concern in response to counsel's representation. Although the trial court inquired of defense counsel whether it should conduct a canvass, defense counsel replied, ''I think we're all right.'' After the jury returned to the courtroom, defense counsel again indicated that the defense would ''rest on the state's case,'' and the defendant remained silent. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that, as a matter of constitutional law, a criminal defendant personally must inform the trial court, either orally or in writing, that he is waiving his right to testify, that counsel's in-court representation that the defendant waived his right to testify was invalid and, therefore, that his conviction must be reversed. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that his convic- tion must be reversed on the ground that he did not affirmatively inform the trial court that he was waiving his right to testify, this court having concluded that a trial court is not constitutionally required to obtain such an on-the-record waiver from the defendant, himself: this court concluded, consistent with the majority of courts that have ruled on the issue, that the right to testify is a personal constitutional right that can be waived only by the defendant, rather than a tactical right that defense counsel may waive on a criminal defendant's behalf as a matter of trial strategy; nevertheless, the right to testify is not among the per- sonal constitutional rights that require an affirmative waiver on the record by the criminal defendant, himself, as the majority of courts have concluded that a criminal defendant's waiver of that right may be inferred from the defendant's act of not taking the stand or from defense counsel's in-court representation that the defendant has elected not to testify combined with the defendant's coincident silence, and, in the absence of evidence of a problem in the attorney-client relationship, the represen- tation by defense counsel that a defendant is waiving his right to testify, together with the defendant's silence at the time of counsel's in-court representation, satisfies the constitutional requirement of a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver; moreover, courts have declined to create a per se canvass requirement on the ground that a colloquy with a judge regarding the right to testify may, in some circumstances, run the risk of improperly influencing a criminal defendant's decision not to testify; furthermore, the defendant could not prevail on his claim that this court's decision in State v. Gore (288 Conn. 770), which held that the right to a jury trial is a personal constitutional right that a criminal defendant must personally waive, required a contrary conclusion, as this court had held in other cases prior to Gore that the waiver of the right to self-representation and the right against self-incrimination, both personal constitutional rights, could be effectuated in the absence of an affirmative, on-the-record indication from the defendant, himself, and nothing in Gore suggested that its holding was applicable to all personal constitutional rights. 2. In the exercise of its supervisory authority over the administration of justice, this court required, in future cases, that a trial court presiding over a criminal trial either canvass the defendant prior to the waiver of his right to testify in order to ensure that the waiver is made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, or, alternatively, inquire of defense counsel directly to determine whether counsel has adequately advised the defen- dant regarding the waiver of his right to testify, but only when defense counsel advises the trial court that counsel believes that a direct canvass carries the risk of inadvertently interfering with a decision made by the defendant after extensive conversations with counsel regarding trial strategy. 3. This court declined to review the defendant's unpreserved claim that the prosecutor had committed improprieties during her direct examination of the victim by virtue of her allegedly excessive use of leading questions, in violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial, as the defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's use of leading questions was purely eviden- tiary in nature rather than a constitutional claim that, even though unpreserved, could be reviewed on appeal under this court's decisions in State v. Williams (204 Conn. 523) and State v. Warholic (278 Conn. 354). Argued October 22, 2021—officially released May 10, 2022

Convicted, on a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, the defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the informa- tion. In 2012, the victim was shot and robbed by an unknown assailant while she was standing near her car in a parking lot. The police thereafter conducted a search of an area near the crime scene and recovered various items, which were submitted to the state forensic science labora- tory for testing. In its DNA report, employees at the laboratory concluded that the DNA found on each item consisted of a mixture of DNA profiles and that the victim was not a source of or contributor to the mixed profiles. Following the release of video surveillance footage that cap- tured images of the suspect fleeing the crime scene, an anonymous caller contacted the police and reported that the suspect in the video footage looked like his cousin, the defendant, and that the defendant had told relatives that he had shot the victim. As part of their investiga- tion, the police compared the DNA profiles generated from the crime scene evidence with those in a database that contains the DNA profiles of convicted felons. Because the police had been erroneously informed that the defendant's DNA profile was in the database, when the database search did not return a match, the police ceased their investigation of the defendant. In April, 2017, approximately six months before the expiration of the applicable five year statute of limitations ((Rev. to 2011) § 54-193 (b)), the police applied for a John Doe arrest warrant, alleging in an accompanying affidavit that there was probable cause for the statute of limitations to be tolled pending the arrest of an unknown male responsible for the assault and robbery of the victim, and allegedly identifiable through the DNA profiles obtained from the crime scene evidence and general descriptions given by the victim and witnesses to the attack. The trial court signed the John Doe arrest warrant on the basis of the information contained in the affidavit. In April, 2018, more than five months after the statute of limitations had expired, the mother of the defendant's child contacted the police and reported that the defendant had confessed to her that he was the assailant. The police, pursuant to a search warrant, then obtained a DNA sample from the defendant, which they submitted to the state forensic science laboratory. The laboratory retested the crime scene evidence and compared the defendant's DNA with the new DNA profiles generated from the retesting. In supplemental DNA reports, employees at the laboratory concluded, inter alia, that it was at least 100 billion times more likely that the defendant was a contributor to the mixed DNA profiles than if they had originated from all unknown individuals. In May, 2018, the defendant was arrested pursuant to the John Doe arrest warrant and charged with robbery and assault in connection with the attack of the victim. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the informa- tion, claiming, inter alia, that the John Doe arrest warrant did not satisfy the particularly requirement of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and, therefore, that the issuance of that warrant in April, 2017, did not toll the statute of limitations. In denying the defen- dant's motion to dismiss, the trial court, specifically relying on one or both of the 2018 supplemental DNA reports, concluded that the John Doe arrest warrant identified the defendant with ''nearly irrefutable precision'' and, therefore, satisfied the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment. After the trial court accepted the defendant's condi- tional plea of nolo contendere, the defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court improperly had denied his motion to dismiss the information because a John Doe arrest warrant that identifies a suspect on the basis of a general description and mixed partial DNA profiles violates the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment and, therefore, cannot serve to toll the statute of limitations applicable to the charged crimes. Held: 1. The record was adequate for review of the defendant's unpreserved claim that a John Doe arrest warrant that identifies a suspect through mixed partial DNA profiles violates the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment; there was no merit to the state's claim that, insofar as the defendant did not raise his claim in the trial court, the state was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence that might have established that the defendant's DNA profile would have been included in one of the 2012 mixed partial profiles if they had been compared, because, in determining the validity of an arrest warrant, the only information that a reviewing court properly may consider is that which was presented to the judicial authority that issued the warrant, which must either appear in the warrant itself or be incorporated by reference therein, and, in the present case, the record included the John Doe arrest warrant and, therefore, contained all of the facts necessary for this court's review of the defendant's claim. 2. This court having concluded that the John Doe arrest warrant at issue failed to satisfy the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment, the trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the information: although a John Doe arrest warrant that describes a suspect by reference to his or her unique DNA profile generally can satisfy the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment, the John Doe arrest warrant in the present case, which identified the suspect on the basis of a general physical description that could apply to any number of people and on the basis of mixed partial DNA profiles that were not positively known to include the suspect's unique DNA profile, and which failed to state the statistical rarity of any of the profiles, did not describe with particularity the person responsible for the attack of the victim and, therefore, did not toll the applicable statute of limitations; moreover, contrary to the state's contention, the trial court improperly relied on one or both of the 2018 supplemental DNA reports in determining that the 2012 DNA report, which the police had relied on to establish probable cause for the John Doe arrest warrant, identified the suspect with the particularity required by the fourth amendment, as the 2018 reports were not contained in the John Doe arrest warrant or incorporated therein by reference; accordingly, the judgment of conviction was reversed and the case was remanded with direction to render judgment dismissing the information. Argued November 17, 2021—officially released May 10, 2022

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants, D Co., and its managing member, E, in connection with D Co.'s breach of a commercial lease agreement for certain premises, which D Co. used to operate a restaurant and bar. D Co. had entered into a ten year lease agreement with T Co., the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest. E subsequently exe- cuted a separate agreement with T Co., pursuant to which E personally guaranteed all of D Co.'s obligations under the lease agreement. The plaintiff later purchased the premises from T Co. and was assigned all of T Co.'s rights and obligations under the lease and guarantee agree- ments. The lease agreement contained provisions requiring D Co. to use the premises only for the operation of a restaurant and bar selling food and beverages and to bear the burden of complying with all applicable laws and regulations. It also required D Co. to pay the plaintiff monthly rent and a certain percentage of its gross annual sales. D Co. failed to make timely lease payments in January and February, 2020, but cured each of those defaults. D Co. then defaulted a third time in March, 2020. Around that time, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, and the governor proclaimed civil preparedness and public health emergencies on March 10, 2020. The governor then issued a series of executive orders that closed restaurants and bars to in person business through May 20, 2020, restricted restaurants to outdoor dining and on premises alcohol consumption through June 16, 2020, and then allowed restaurants to resume indoor dining only at 50 percent capacity. D Co.'s restaurant was closed entirely between March 11 and May 27, 2020, and then opened for outdoor dining and subsequently for limited indoor dining. Whereas D Co.'s restaurant previously had a capacity of more than 140 patrons, upon reopening, indoor capacity was limited to approximately 25 persons, including staff. The restaurant was operating at a loss, and D Co. did not make any rental payments after February, 2020. D Co. vacated the premises in September, 2020, in response to a notice to quit, and the plaintiff immediately began searching for a new tenant. S Co. signed a ten year lease for the premises on November 30, 2020, with occupancy commencing in January, 2021. S Co.'s monthly rental payment was less than what D Co. had been paying, and the plaintiff granted S Co. a concession of six months' free rent. The plaintiff alleged that D Co. had breached the lease agreement and had been unjustly enriched by virtue of its continued use of the premises for months after defaulting, and that E had breached his obligations under his agreement to guarantee D Co.'s obligations under the lease. In response, the defendants raised various special defenses, including the doctrines of impossibility of performance and frustration of purpose, owing to the adverse effects of the executive orders on the restaurant and hospitality industry. After a trial to the court, the trial court found for the plaintiff on all three counts and rejected the defendants' special defenses. The court concluded that the defendants had not proven, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the executive orders had rendered the operation of a restaurant impossible or frustrated the purpose of the lease agreement. The court reasoned that, although the pandemic was unforeseeable, the lease agreement allocated to D Co. the burden of complying with the executive orders, that the lease agreement did not require the operation of a profitable restaurant, and that none of the executive orders specifically made the operation of a restaurant impossible, especially in light of takeout and curbside options. With respect to damages, the court awarded the plaintiff, inter alia, damages for unpaid lease payments from March through December, 2020, around the time when S Co. signed its lease. Although the court credited evidence that the plaintiff had made efforts to mitigate its damages by securing S Co. as a new tenant, it found that the plaintiff had presented no evidence of its negotiations with S Co. to determine whether further negotiations could have resulted in a lease with terms similar to or the same as those in the defendants' lease. From the judgment rendered thereon, the defendants appealed and the plaintiff cross appealed. Held: 1. The defendants could not prevail on their claim that the trial court incor- rectly had concluded that they failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the special defenses of impossibility and frustration of purpose: a. The trial court correctly determined that the various executive orders restricting the operation of D Co.'s restaurant did not render performance of the lease agreement impossible as a matter of law: only in the most exceptional circumstances will a contractual duty be discharged because additional financial burdens make performance less practical than ini- tially contemplated, a party who makes an unqualified promise to perform necessarily assumes an obligation to perform, even if the occurrence of a foreseeable event makes performance impracticable, and the impossi- bility doctrine does not apply when the contract explicitly assigns a particular risk to one party; in the present case, the impossibility doctrine did not excuse D Co. from its obligations to the plaintiff under the lease agreement because, even under the most restrictive executive orders closing restaurants entirely to indoor dining, use of the premises for the purpose of operating a restaurant was not rendered impossible insofar as restaurants were permitted to provide curbside or takeout service; moreover, the lease agreement did not prohibit D Co. from offering such curbside or takeout service, and, although the pandemic restrictions had serious economic consequences for the viability of the restaurant, they did not, by themselves, make performance under the lease agreement impossible or commercially impracticable but, instead, simply raised the cost of performance for D Co. in a manner that rendered performance highly burdensome but not factually impossible; furthermore, the lan- guage of the lease agreement suggested that events of the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic were not entirely unforeseeable, and the lease agreement, to the extent that it contemplated a crisis situation beyond the parties' control, excused only the plaintiff's obligations while squarely tasking D Co. with the obligation of complying with all governmental laws, orders and regulations. b. The trial court correctly determined that the shutdown and restrictions compelled by the pandemic related executive orders did not frustrate the purpose of the lease agreement, which the defendants claimed was the operation of a ''first-class'' restaurant with indoor, on premises dining and bar service: establishing the frustration of purpose defense requires convincing proof of a changed situation so severe that it is not fairly regarded as being within the risks assumed under the contract, and, in light of the narrow construction afforded to the doctrine so as to preserve the certainty of contracts, this court could not conclude that the purpose of the parties' lease agreement was frustrated by the pandemic restric- tions imposed by the executive orders, as even the most restrictive of the executive orders barring indoor dining entirely did not render the lease agreement valueless insofar as it did not preclude takeout or out- door dining, which services D Co. ultimately provided. 2. The trial court improperly assigned the plaintiff, as the nonbreaching party, the burden of proving that it had mitigated its damages, and, accordingly, this court reversed the judgment with respect to the trial court's damages award and remanded the case for further proceedings as to damages: consistent with well established principles of damages law, as well as this court's precedent in the contexts of tort and contract law, this court concluded that, when a lessee has breached a lease agreement, the lessee bears the burden of proving that the lessor failed to undertake commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages; in the present case, the trial court, in determining the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled, stopped the accrual of monthly rent damages in December, 2020, even though S Co. was not set to occupy the premises under its lease until January, 2021, and noted that the plaintiff had presented no evidence of its negotiations with S Co. and that it could only speculate if further negotiations with S Co. would have resulted in a lease with the same or similar terms to those in the defendants' lease; moreover, by engaging in the foregoing speculation in connection with reducing the contract damages that it ultimately awarded to the plaintiff, the trial court effectively relieved the defendants of their burden of proving that the plaintiff's efforts were, in fact, commercially unrea- sonable under the circumstances; accordingly, a new hearing in damages was required. Argued November 16, 2021—officially released May 10, 2022

The petitioner, who had been convicted of attempt to commit murder, among other crimes, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel, M, had provided ineffective assistance during pretrial plea nego- tiations. During those negotiations, the trial court offered the petitioner a plea deal of fifteen years of incarceration, execution suspended after nine years, but the petitioner, who had indicated his preference for a six year sentence, rejected that offer. After a jury trial, at which substantial evidence was presented in support of the petitioner's conviction, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to thirty-five years of incarcera- tion. At the petitioner's first habeas trial, the court rejected the petition- er's ineffective assistance claim, but the Appellate Court reversed the habeas court's judgment, concluding that M's performance was deficient insofar as she did not adequately advise the petitioner regarding the trial court's nine year plea offer. The Appellate Court remanded the case for a new habeas trial on the issue of whether the petitioner had been prejudiced by M's deficient performance. After that new trial, the habeas court, crediting the petitioner's testimony at the new habeas trial, as well as the testimony of a legal expert regarding the advice reasonably competent counsel would have provided, found that the petitioner likely would have accepted the nine year offer if M had ade- quately advised him and thus concluded that the petitioner met his burden of establishing prejudice. Accordingly, the habeas court rendered judgment granting the petition. On the granting of certification, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appealed. Held that the habeas court correctly determined that the petitioner had met his burden of establishing prejudice as a result of M's ineffective assistance: the habeas court's finding that the petitioner likely would have accepted the trial court's nine year plea offer if M had adequately advised him was supported by the record in view of the petitioner's testimony at the habeas trial, the strength of the state's criminal case against the petitioner, his apparent willingness to plead guilty, the generosity of the plea offer in comparison to the thirty-five year sentence ultimately imposed, and the relatively minor difference in prison time between the plea offer and the petitioner's counterproposal; moreover, this court rejected the respondent's claim that the habeas court had improperly relied on the Appellate Court's conclusion that M's performance was deficient, as the Appellate Court's decision, which was issued nearly eight years beforehand, constituted a final determination of the legal issues presented on appeal, including the issue of whether M's perfor- mance was deficient, and, because the respondent never sought certifica- tion to appeal from the Appellate Court's judgment, the respondent could not relitigate the legal issues decided by that court; furthermore, the record contained sufficient contemporaneous evidence from the time of the underlying plea negotiations to substantiate the petitioner's after-the-fact testimony that he would have accepted the plea offer but for M's deficient performance. Argued November 19, 2021—officially released May 17, 2022

The plaintiffs, C Co. and D Co., which had contracted with the defendant, the city of Hartford, to construct a baseball stadium, appealed from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the city. The city had entered into an agreement with an architectural firm, P Co., to design the stadium. After P Co. began work, the city, in February, 2015, entered into a development agreement with D Co. whereby D Co. would serve as the developer and administer and complete P Co.'s plans. In turn, C Co. and D Co. entered into a builder agreement with each other, and they both entered into a direct agreement with the city. In May, 2015, the city assigned its agreement with P Co. to C Co. and D Co. In December, 2015, a dispute arose between the parties. C Co. and D Co. claimed that they had never been given control over P Co. or its design of the stadium, and that the scope of the project had increased because of design changes made by the city and the team that would be occupying the stadium. The city and D Co. resolved the dispute in January, 2016, by executing a term sheet that increased the budget for the project and extended the substantial completion deadline from March 11 to May 17, 2016. The term sheet, which C Co. did not sign, also prevented changes to the project without the city's consent and modified the liquidated damages provision in the city's agreement with D Co. After C Co. and D Co. failed to meet the extended substantial completion deadline, the city terminated its contractual relationship with C Co. and D Co. on the grounds that C Co. and/or D Co. had failed to construct the ballpark in a workmanlike manner and to pay the city liquidated damages that had accrued since their failure to substantially complete the project. C Co. and D Co. thereafter brought the present action against the city, claiming that the city had breached its contracts with them by failing to provide them with notice and an opportunity to cure the alleged defaults before terminating their contractual relationship. The city filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of contract against C Co. and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against C Co. and D Co. Prior to trial, and in response to various motions filed by the parties, the trial court determined that the city's contracts with C Co., D Co., and P Co. granted the city the right to approve the architectural plans and changes to them but granted C Co. and D Co. the right to control how the plans were carried out, including control over P Co. and responsibility for P Co.'s errors and omissions. The court further determined that the city's agreement with D Co. vested the city with the right of commercially reasonable approval over the project plans but that it was the parties' intention that D Co. would have complete control over the stadium design and construction. With respect to the assignment of the city's agreement with P Co. to C Co. and D Co., the court determined that C Co. and D Co. were able to present evidence at trial only as to the city's interference with their legal control over P Co. and the stadium's design after the term sheet was executed. The court instructed the jury that the only issue for it to decide was who was to blame for the stadium's not being ready by the May 17, 2016 deadline. The jury found C Co. and D Co. responsible for failing to complete the stadium by the contractually agreed on deadline, returned a verdict against C Co. and D Co. on their breach of contract claim against the city, and awarded the city $335,000 in liquidated damages in connection with its counterclaim. The trial court rendered judgment for the city, and C Co. and D Co. appealed. Held: 1. D Co. did not waive its right to contest errors by the city that occurred prior to the execution of the term sheet, including any architectural or design errors over which the city previously had control; accordingly, the trial court improperly precluded D Co. from presenting evidence of such errors and pursuing the claims against the city that it was entitled to pursue under the term sheet. 2. The parties plainly and unambiguously provided in their agreements that, until the city assigned the agreement that it had with P Co. to C Co. and D Co., the city maintained legal control of and responsibility for P Co.'s work, including any errors or omissions that occurred between February and May, 2015; the city's assignment of its agreement with P Co. in May, 2015, to C Co. and D Co. would have been superfluous if C Co. and D Co. already had legal control of and responsibility for P Co.'s work prior to that assignment, and the assignment's recitals comported with the understanding that it was the parties' intent that there would be a subsequent assignment to C Co. and D Co. of the agreement between the city and P Co. 3. The clear language of the city's assignment of its agreement with P Co. to C Co. and D Co. plainly and unambiguously provided that C Co. and D Co. had legal control of and responsibility for P Co. and the stadium design upon the execution of that assignment in May, 2015, until January, 2016, when the term sheet was executed, including responsibility for any design errors committed during that time period; contrary to the trial court's determination, however, the assignment's plain and unam- biguous language established that the city retained all obligations as to P Co. arising out of P Co.'s services before the assignment in May, 2015, including responsibility for any of P Co.'s errors or omissions before May, 2015. 4. This court determined that it was unclear under the term sheet whether the city, on the one hand, or C Co. and D Co., on the other, had control of P Co. and the stadium design after the execution of the term sheet in January, 2016, until June, 2016, when the city terminated its contractual relationship with C Co. and D Co.; accordingly, that issue was to be determined by the fact finder on remand. 5. The term sheet did not unambiguously divest C Co. of the right, in its agreement with D Co., to notice and an opportunity to cure any default prior to termination, the issue of whether the city improperly failed to provide C Co. with the required notice and cure period was a question of fact for the fact finder, and the city and C Co. should have been permitted to introduce evidence regarding whether the city gave C Co. notice and an opportunity to cure prior to terminating their contractual relationship: a. Although the city gained the right under the term sheet to remove C Co., without first terminating D Co., in the event that C Co. failed to meet the substantial completion deadline, the term sheet was ambiguous as to whether the right to remove C Co. was a newly created, unqualified right or involved the assignment to the city of D Co.'s preexisting right that D Co. had under its agreement with C Co.; however, under either interpretation of the term sheet, C Co. had an implied common-law right or a contractual right to notice and an opportunity to cure, as the term sheet did not unambiguously divest C Co. of such a right, and, accord- ingly, the trial court incorrectly determined that the term sheet did not require the city to provide C Co. with notice and an opportunity to cure prior to termination. b. The city could not prevail on its claim that, even if C Co. had been given an opportunity to cure, it could not establish that it would have achieved substantial completion of the project within the allotted cure period, as it was the city's burden, rather than that of C Co., to demon- strate that providing an opportunity to cure would have been futile or that C Co.'s breach was incurable; because the trial court's ruling with respect to this issue was improper and the court did not present the issue to the jury, the parties were prevented from developing the record, and the case was remanded for further development of the record and a determination by the fact finder with respect to that issue. c. The record was inadequate to determine whether C Co. ratified the term sheet, as the trial court made no preliminary finding of fact regarding ratification, and, thus, the parties did not have the opportunity to offer evidence on this issue, but the issue of whether C Co. ratified the term sheet must be addressed on remand only if the fact finder determines that the term sheet granted the city a newly created right to terminate C Co. for failing to meet the substantial completion deadline; accordingly, on remand, the fact finder must first determine whether the term sheet granted the city that newly created right or assigned to the city a preex- isting right under D Co.'s agreement with C Co., and, if it determines that the term sheet granted the city a newly created right, it then must determine whether C Co. ratified the term sheet; moreover, if the fact finder determines that C Co. did ratify the term sheet, which C Co. would have to have done to consent to its requirements, the scope of the trial on remand would be limited to claims that arose after the execution of the term sheet in January, 2016. Argued April 26, 2021—officially released May 24, 2022

Pursuant to statute (§ 54-91g), when sentencing a child whose case has been transferred from the docket for juvenile matters to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court and the child has been convicted of a class A or B felony pursuant to such transfer, the sentencing court is required to consider certain factors, including the defendant's age at the time of the offense and the hallmark features of adolescence. Pursuant further to statute (§ 54-125a (f) (1)), a person convicted of a crime or crimes committed while such person was under eighteen years of age and serving a sentence for that crime or crimes of fifty years of imprisonment or less shall be eligible for parole after serving 60 percent of the sentence or twelve years, whichever is greater. The defendant, who, in two separate cases, had been convicted of numerous crimes that he committed when he was fifteen years old, appealed from the trial court's denial in part and dismissal in part of his motions to correct an illegal sentence. In 2009, the defendant was sentenced in the first case to a total effective sentence of eighteen years of imprisonment, followed by twenty-two years of special parole. In 2011, the defendant entered a guilty plea in the second case and received a sentence of fourteen years of imprisonment, followed by six years of special parole, to run concurrently with the sentence that he already was serving in connection with the 2009 case. In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama (567 U.S 460) and its progeny, as well as legislation (P.A. 15-84) enacted in response thereto concerning sentencing procedures for juvenile offenders, the defendant filed one motion to correct an illegal sentence in each criminal case. He claimed that the trial court had failed to consider the hallmark features of adoles- cence as mitigating factors in sentencing him, in violation of Miller and its progeny, and in violation of § 54-91g, and sought a resentencing at which such factors would be considered. The defendant also claimed that he was being denied a meaningful opportunity for parole because, when the Board of Pardons and Paroles calculated his parole eligibility date pursuant to § 54-125a (f) (1), it did so on the basis of his fourteen year sentence, rather than on the basis of either his eighteen year sen- tence or the total time served under both sentences, which, due to the structure of his concurrent sentences, resulted in his parole eligibility date in 2023 rather than in 2019. The defendant contended that the board's incorrect calculation preventing him from receiving any practical benefit under § 54-125a (f) (1) was contrary to legislative intent, did not reflect the terms of his plea agreement, in violation of his right to due process, and violated his right to equal protection under the law. The trial court dismissed the defendant's claim that he was entitled to resen- tencing pursuant to Miller and its progeny, his claim that he was entitled to resentencing under § 54-91g, his claim that he was denied a meaningful opportunity for parole under § 54-125a (f) (1), and his equal protection claim. The court denied the defendant's claim that his sentences as imposed violated the understanding of his plea agreement, in violation of his right to due process, concluding that there was no agreement with respect to when the defendant would be eligible for parole. On the defendant's appeal from the denial of his motions to correct an illegal sentence, held that the form of the trial court's judgment was improper insofar as that court should have denied, rather than dismissed, the defendant's claims that he was entitled to be resentenced on the basis of Miller and its progeny, and § 54-91g, and insofar as it should have dismissed, rather than denied, the defendant's claim that his parole eligibility date did not reflect the terms of his plea agreement, in violation of his right to due process: because the defendant's claims that he was entitled, pursuant to Miller and its progeny, and § 54-91g, to be resentenced at a hearing at which the sentencing court must consider the mitigating factors of youth plausibly challenged the defendant's sentence, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to address them, but the defendant's Miller claim failed on the merits because the defen- dant was not sentenced to life imprisonment or its functional equivalent and because he was eligible for parole, rendering Miller inapplicable to him, and his claim under § 54-91g failed in light of this court's prior conclusion that the legislature did not intend for the section of P.A. 15- 84 codifying § 54-91g to apply retroactively; moreover, the defendant's claims that his parole eligibility date violated § 54-125a (f) (1) and his rights to due process and equal protection were jurisdictionally defective insofar as they did not challenge the defendant's sentences or the manner in which the sentencing court imposed his sentences but, instead, arose from an action, namely, the calculation of his parole eligibility date, that he concedes was undertaken by the board; furthermore, it was undisputed that the board was the state actor tasked by the relevant state regulation (§ 54-125a-3 (b)) with determining the defendant's earli- est parole eligibility date, and, although the record did not reveal how the board interpreted and applied the relevant statutes in doing so, the defendant's claims regarding his parole eligibility date challenged the board's act of interpreting and applying the relevant statutes, and the proper forum for the defendant to raise those claims, following exhaus- tion of any administrative remedies, is in a habeas proceeding; addition- ally, the defendant will be eligible for parole regardless of which of his sentences the board bases its calculation on, just not as soon as he would prefer, and the mere fact that the board's interpretation of the applicable statutes yielded a later parole eligibility date than another interpretation could have yielded does not, in and of itself, implicate the legality of the defendant's sentences for purposes of the trial court's jurisdiction over his motions to correct an illegal sentence. Argued December 16, 2021—officially released May 24, 2022

Convicted of home invasion, attempt to commit assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and risk of injury to a child, the defendant appealed to this court. The victim, V, and his neighbor, M, were sitting on the front porch of the two family home in which they resided, when they saw a man dressed in black jeans and a black hoodie approach them while pulling his hood over his head and a mask over his face. The masked man pulled out a pistol, and V and M fled. V ran into the house and up the stairs to his second floor apartment. V closed and locked his front door, but the masked man kicked it open and entered the apartment while waving his pistol and yelling, ''where is the little motherfucker?'' V snuck down the stairs and yelled back at the masked man to lure him away from his wife and two sons, who also were inside the apartment. The masked man followed V down the stairs, where V, who was standing on the sidewalk, pulled out his own lawfully concealed pistol and instructed the masked man to drop his weapon. Instead, the masked man raised his pistol and shot one time. V then returned fire, striking the masked man at least once. The masked man then went around the side of the house and collapsed near a bulkhead door. V followed him but was almost struck by a gray Nissan truck that was fleeing the area. Although nobody could identify the masked man to the police, the police stopped a gray Nissan truck match- ing the description provided by V and M shortly thereafter. The defendant was a passenger in that truck, was wearing khaki pants and a white T- shirt, and was suffering from a recently inflicted gunshot wound. The police never recovered the masked man's pistol, black clothing, or mask, but DNA testing revealed that blood found on the sidewalk and the bulkhead door near where the masked man collapsed belonged to the defendant. At the defendant's trial, defense counsel moved for a judg- ment of acquittal on the ground that all of the eyewitnesses had identified the masked man's clothing as black, which was not what the defendant was wearing when he was apprehended shortly after the shooting. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and defense counsel renewed the motion for a judgment of acquittal. The court denied the motion and rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The state adduced sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reason- able doubt that the defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes of conviction: the defendant's blood was found by the bulkhead door in the exact location where the masked man collapsed after being shot, the defendant was apprehended only five minutes from the scene of the shooting while suffering from a recently inflicted gunshot wound, and the truck in which he was apprehended was registered to the defen- dant, was seen by V and M driving past their house multiple times earlier that day, and matched the description V and M provided of the vehicle fleeing the scene immediately after the shooting; moreover, the jurors were permitted to rely on their common knowledge and experience that criminals often discard inculpatory evidence when they flee the scene of a crime to infer that the defendant had discarded the black clothing, mask, and pistol used in the commission of the crimes as he fled; furthermore, the fact that were was no evidence of the defendant's motive was inconsequential, as it is well established that motive is not an element of the crimes charged and that proof of motive is not neces- sary to support a conclusion of guilt that is otherwise sufficiently estab- lished. 2. The jury's verdict of guilty of the crimes of attempt to commit assault in the first degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree was not legally inconsistent, as the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant's conduct constituted two different criminal acts, each of which was committed with a distinct and mutually exclusive mental state: the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant first acted with the conscious objective to inflict serious physical injury on V when he chased V up the stairs, broke down his door, and entered his apart- ment while yelling and waving a pistol; moreover, based on the change in location, the amount of time separating the acts, and V's intervening conduct, the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant com- mitted a second, discrete criminal act when, after exiting the apartment, he fired a single shot at V after V confronted him, as the jury could have found that V's act of pulling out his own pistol and V's refusal to comply with the defendant's demands prompted the defendant to modify his own intention and to fire a warning shot at V in reckless disregard of the risk of inflicting serious physical injury on V. 3. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that his convic- tions of home invasion and attempt to commit assault in the first degree violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, as those offenses do not constitute the same offense for double jeopardy pur- poses: although the defendant's convictions of home invasion and attempt to commit assault in the first degree were both necessarily predicated on the defendant's conduct in chasing V up the stairs, break- ing down his door, and entering his apartment while brandishing a pistol, and, therefore, arose from the same act or transaction, home invasion, which requires proof that the defendant entered or remained unlawfully in a dwelling while a person other than a participant in the crime was present, and attempt to commit assault in the first degree, which requires proof that the defendant took a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to cause serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument, each contain an element that the other does not; accordingly, it was possible to commit one of those offenses without committing the other. Argued December 13, 2021—officially released May 31, 2022

Convicted of felony murder, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. Shortly after the shooting, the police brought the defendant to the police station, where he was advised of and waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). During the interrogation of the defendant, he denied any involvement in the robbery or the murder of the victim but admitted that he was present at the scene and that he briefly had held a gun belonging to another individual, J, shortly before the shooting. The defendant elected to be tried on the felony murder charge by a three judge panel and by the presiding judge on the remaining counts. Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to suppress the video recording of the defendant's inter- rogation, but, because the court found the portion of the recording in which the defendant purportedly requested an attorney to be unintelligi- ble, it denied the motion on the ground that the defendant had not made an unambiguous request for counsel. The panel ultimately found the defendant guilty of felony murder, and the presiding judge found the defendant guilty of the remaining charges. Before the defendant was sentenced, however, this court issued its decision in State v. Purcell (331 Conn. 318), which held, as a matter of state constitutional law, that, if a suspect makes an equivocal statement that arguably could be construed as a request for counsel, interrogation must cease except for narrow questions designed to clarify the suspect's desire for counsel. The defendant then filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of Purcell. After listening to the recording of the interrogation again, the trial court concluded that the defendant's remark ''you got me . . . stop talking right now, I'm trying to get a lawyer'' constituted an equivocal statement that arguably could be construed as a request for counsel and that any subsequent statements made by the defendant during the interrogation should have been suppressed under Purcell. Nonetheless, the panel determined that the improper admission of any subsequent statements was harmless with respect to the felony murder conviction because the panel had not considered the defendant's statements during the interrogation in determining his guilt and because the defendant's state- ments were not inculpatory insofar as he denied any involvement in the murder or the robbery. With respect to the defendant's conviction of both attempt and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, the presiding judge likewise found the improper admission of the defen- dant's statements to be harmless because the presiding judge had not considered them in determining the defendant's guilt in connection with those crimes, they were cumulative of other evidence, and they did not implicate the defendant in the attempt to rob the victim. However, because the presiding judge had relied on the defendant's statements, made during the interrogation, that he temporarily had possessed a handgun as evidence supporting the defendant's conviction of carrying a pistol without a permit, the judge vacated the defendant's conviction of that offense and ordered a new trial on that charge only. Thus, the trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial, except with respect to his conviction of carrying a pistol without a permit. Thereafter, the defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to this court. Held that, even if this court assumed that the defendant's statements during the interrogation were improperly admitted into evidence in violation of Purcell, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and, accordingly, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for a new trial with respect to his conviction of felony murder, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree: in determining the defendant's guilt, the panel and the presiding judge rejected the version of events proffered by the defendant in his statements made during his interrogation, namely, that he was an innocent bystander who happened to be walking by the scene immediately before he saw J shoot the victim, and, instead, relied on and credited other evidence adduced at trial, including surveillance footage and the testimony of various witnesses, in finding that the victim was shot in the course of, and in furtherance of, an attempted robbery in which the defendant was a participant; moreover, viewed in the context of the entire record, it was clear that the defendant did not implicate himself in the shooting or the robbery of the victim in his statements that he made during the interrogation, his statements were not important to the state's case, and they did not in any respect affect the convictions at issue, especially in light of the panel's and the presiding judge's remarks in the memorandum of decision on the defendant's new trial motion that the defendant's statements had no effect on their decisions, the fact that the memorandum of decision contained no men- tion or reference to the defendant's statements to the police, and the fact that the inculpatory portion of the defendant's interrogation, in which the defendant admitted to being at the scene of the shooting and possessing J's gun, was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence; furthermore, even if this court could consider the impact that a Purcell violation had on the conduct of the defense at trial, the defendant's argument that he might have raised the statutory (§ 53a-54c) affirmative defense to felony murder but for the improper admission of his state- ments was unavailing, as there was no evidence in the record from which the fact finder could rationally conclude that the defendant had proven by a fair preponderance the existence of the elements to that defense, and, even if such a defense had been presented, it would have been rejected by the fact finder as inconsistent with the testimony of the witnesses credited by the court that the defendant possessed a gun on the day of the shooting and aided in the commission of the robbery that resulted in the murder of the victim. Argued January 20—officially released June 7, 2022

Pursuant to the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA) (§ 52-572q (a) and (d)), a product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused to an individual who proves that the product was defective insofar as adequate warnings or instructions were not provided, and the product seller may not be considered to have provided adequate warnings or instructions unless they were devised to communicate with the person or entity best able to take or recommend precautions against the poten- tial harm. Pursuant further to the CPLA (§ 52-572n (a)), ''[a] product liability claim as provided [under that act] may be asserted and shall be in lieu of all other claims against product sellers, including actions of negligence, strict liability and warranty, for harm caused by a product.'' The plaintiffs, M and her husband, sought to recover damages from the defendants in federal court in connection with two surgical procedures in which a medical device manufactured and marketed by the defen- dants, known as the Trulign Lens, was implanted in each of M's eyes for the purpose of treating her cataracts. M began to experience vision loss after the procedure, and her surgeon diagnosed her with a postopera- tive complication known as Z syndrome. M underwent multiple proce- dures to remove the artificial lenses and to correct her vision, but fragments of the lenses remained, causing permanent impairment to her eyesight. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the defendants were negligent and had failed to warn M and her surgeon of the inherent dangers of the Trulign Lens. In support of those claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were aware that the Trulign Lens had caused Z syndrome in numerous cases, that the defendants had failed to report all of those cases to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a timely manner, as required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) (21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.), that the defendants had failed to comply with a condition of approval for the Trulign Lens imposed by the FDA requiring the defendants to conduct a postmarket safety study related to Z syndrome and to submit progress reports to the FDA, that, as a result of those failures, M and her surgeon were unaware of the true dangers of the Trulign Lens, and that, if they had known of those dangers, M would not have undergone the surgeries. The plaintiffs also alleged that, after M's surgeries, the labeling of the Trulign Lens was changed to reflect the true frequency of Z syndrome and to include instructions for minimizing risk and for treatment. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the ground that they were preempted by federal law. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to add a claim that the defendants had violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) by unscrupulously marketing and promoting the Trulign Lens for use despite knowing that it presented a substantial risk of injury. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the defen- dants' motion to dismiss the action, concluding, with respect to the negligence and failure to warn claims, that those claims were expressly or impliedly preempted by the FDCA, which, inter alia, prohibits claims based on state law that impose requirements ''different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable . . . to the [medical] device'' under federal law. The District Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint on the ground that it would be futile insofar as the proposed CUTPA claim also would be preempted by federal law. The plaintiffs appealed from the District Court's judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which noted that the preemption analysis under the FDCA turns on whether the plaintiffs successfully pleaded a traditional state law cause of action that existed separately from the FDCA but did not impose requirements different from, or in addition to, the requirements imposed by federal law. Because the Second Circuit found Connecticut law unclear with respect to whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn a regulator, such as the FDA, of a product's known safety risks, that court sought this court's advice, by way of certification pursuant to statute (§ 51-199b (d)), as to whether a cause of action exists under § 52-572q, or under some other Connecticut law, based on a manufacturer's alleged failure to report adverse events to a regulator like the FDA following approval of the device, or a failure to comply with a regulator's postmar- ket requirements. With respect to the plaintiffs' claim that the District Court had incorrectly determined that amending their complaint to include the unscrupulous marketing claim under CUTPA would be futile, the Second Circuit observed that the issue of whether the proposed CUTPA claim was barred by the exclusivity provision set forth in § 52- 572n involved a question of state law for which there was no binding precedent and, accordingly, certified a question of law to this court concerning whether that provision bars a claim under CUTPA based on allegations that a manufacturer deceptively and aggressively marketed and promoted a product despite knowing that it presented a substantial risk of injury. Held: 1. The facts alleged by the plaintiffs, if accepted as true, gave rise to a cognizable claim under § 52-572q based on the defendants' alleged failure to report adverse events associated with the use of Trulign Lens to the FDA in order to prevent harm to users such as M: because the language of § 52-572q does not clearly and unambiguously indicate whether the CPLA, which embodies preexisting common-law causes of action, pro- vides for a cause of action based on a manufacturer's alleged failure to report to a regulator adverse events related to a product, this court looked to case law construing the scope of the CPLA, as well as general common-law principles governing the existence of a duty to use care, and concluded that the defendants had a duty under the CPLA to comply with federal statutes and regulations requiring them to report to the FDA adverse events associated with the Trulign Lens and to comply with the FDA's postapproval requirements with respect to that product; moreover, nothing in the CPLA or in the case law construing the CPLA suggested that only physicians and other healthcare providers could be found to be in the best position to prevent harm to users of medical devices and, thus, the duty to warn was not limited to such individuals, it was appropriate to read the CPLA broadly to accomplish its remedial purpose of preventing injury from defective products, including medical devices that are inherently dangerous and that accordingly must be accompanied by adequate warnings, and the plaintiffs' allegations, when taken as true, which they must at this stage of the proceedings, were sufficient to raise the inference that the defendants knew or should have known that harm of the general nature that M suffered was likely to result from their failure to provide to the FDA in a timely manner information about the adverse effects of the Trulign Lens, as required by federal law; furthermore, other public policy factors supporting the imposition of a duty weighed in favor of the plaintiffs, and this court found the decisions of those jurisdictions construing product liability laws of various states as creating a duty to comply with federal law requiring manufacturers to report to the FDA adverse events associated with inherently dangerous medical devices to be more persuasive than the cases on which the defendants relied; accordingly, this court con- cluded that the plaintiffs could prevail at trial if they established that it is more likely than not that, if the defendants had complied in a timely manner with the requirements of federal law that they report adverse events to the FDA and perform a postmarket safety study, the FDA would have required the defendants to change the labeling of the Trulign Lens or otherwise have made the substance of the reports available to healthcare providers before M's surgeries, and if the plaintiffs also established that, as a result, she and her surgeon would not have chosen that device. 2. The exclusivity provision of the CPLA barred the plaintiffs' CUTPA claim that the defendants unscrupulously marketed and promoted the Trulign Lens for use despite knowing that it presented a substantial risk of injury: this court's precedent established that § 52-572n does not bar CUTPA claims based on the sale of a product when the plaintiff does not seek a remedy for personal injury, death, or property damage that was caused by a defective product, or when the plaintiff seeks a remedy for personal injury, death, or property damage that was caused by the unscrupulous advertising of a product that was not defective, and the plaintiffs' CUTPA claim in the present case, which sought damages for personal injuries that allegedly were caused by unscrupulous advertising of the allegedly defective Trulign Lens, did not fall within the scope of either of those exceptions; moreover, this court declined to recognize an additional exception to the exclusivity provision for CUTPA claims, such as the CUTPA claim asserted in the present case, that seek damages for personal injuries caused by a defective product. (One justice concurring separately) Argued October 22, 2021—officially released June 7, 2022

Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial impropriety during the state's rebuttal argument. The victim and his friend, L, who had been using phencyclidine (PCP), drove to an area in Hartford to purchase more PCP. After L parked the car, the victim exited the car while L remained in the car, and the victim approached the defendant. The victim and the defendant engaged in discussion concerning drugs, after which the victim returned to the car. The defendant then approached the car, aimed a gun at the victim, and shot the victim through the front passenger window. L and two other individuals, I and R, the latter of whom was spending time and smoking PCP with the defendant at and around the time of the shooting, witnessed the events as they unfolded. L, I, and R each identified the defendant in a photographic array as the perpetrator. R thereafter provided a written statement to investigators and testimony to a grand jury implicat- ing the defendant in the murder. Prior to the defendant's trial, however, R indicated to defense counsel that she wanted to recant both her written statement and grand jury testimony. The state subsequently discovered that the defendant had sent text messages to R while he was incarcerated in an attempt to influence her testimony. Insofar as this evidence could have demonstrated the defendant's consciousness of guilt, both defense counsel and the state entered into an agreement pursuant to which the prosecutor, on direct examination of R, would question her about whom she was with and what she saw on the night of the murder but would not question her about her communications with the defendant while he was incarcerated. Pursuant further to that agreement, defense counsel would limit his cross-examination of R to whether R was using PCP on the night of the murder. The prosecutor and defense counsel proceeded to examine R consistent with the agreement. During closing argument, however, defense counsel stated that, if the jury felt that he made a tactical mistake by not cross-examining R, it should not hold that against the defendant. During his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor responded by stating that there was no question about who R was with and what she saw, and that defense counsel ''didn't even [cross-examine] her on any of that.'' Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the prosecutor's rebuttal argument referencing defense counsel's failure to cross-examine R as to certain issues violated the intrinsic character of the parties' agreement regarding R's testimony and, therefore, constituted prosecutorial impro- priety that deprived him of his right to a fair trial: this court could not conclude that, even if the prosecutor's argument was improper, that impropriety deprived the defendant of a fair trial, as the prosecutor's argument was brief, defense counsel did not object to it or ask the trial court to take any curative measures, and defense counsel invited the prosecutor's argument to some extent, as it was only after defense counsel raised the issue by arguing that the jury should not draw an adverse inference from his decision not to cross-examine R more thor- oughly that the prosecutor commented on the issue; moreover, the alleged impropriety was relatively minor, as the jury likely would have noticed defense counsel's unusually truncated cross-examination of R, even without the prosecutor's argument, and, although the alleged impro- priety related to R's credibility, an important issue in the case, the state's case was not dependent on R's testimony, as L's and I's testimony was mostly consistent with R's testimony, and both L and I were also familiar with the defendant prior to the shooting; accordingly, the state's case was not so weak that there was a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different in the absence of the alleged impropriety. 2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding defense counsel from impeaching L and I with evidence of certain prior felony convictions and in requiring two of I's prior convictions to be referred to only as unnamed felonies punishable by more than one year of imprisonment: the trial court properly excluded evidence of L's 2006 convictions of possession of narcotics and failure to appear in the first degree, and I's 2004 and 2005 convictions of sale of a controlled substance, as each of those convictions was at least thirteen years old at the time of trial, none was directly probative of the witnesses' veracity, and, therefore, the probative value of that evidence was diminished and outweighed by the remoteness of the convictions; moreover, the trial court properly allowed defense counsel to refer to I's 2017 convictions of second degree assault and violation of a protective order only as unnamed felonies, as neither conviction bore directly on I's veracity, and, therefore, the court's ruling avoided unwarranted prejudice to I that might have arisen if counsel referred to those convictions by their specific names. 3. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly had declined to provide the jury with his requested instruction that he was not obligated to present any evidence and that the jury could not draw any unfavorable inference from his decision not to do so; it was not reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the trial court's failure to give such an instruction, as the substance of the requested instruction was subsumed within and implicit in the court's preliminary and final instructions on the defendant's option to testify, the presump- tion of innocence, and the state's burden of proof. 4. The trial court properly declined the defendant's request to include the word ''conclusively'' in its jury instruction on the use of evidence of the defendant's uncharged misconduct: although the defendant's request was based on language set forth in instruction 2.6-5 of the model criminal jury instructions on the Judicial Branch website, which provides that a jury may consider evidence of a defendant's uncharged misconduct only if it believes it and, then, only if it finds that the evidence ''logically, rationally and conclusively'' supports the issue or issues for which it was offered by the state, the model instruction was an incorrect statement of the law insofar as it required a jury to find that uncharged misconduct ''conclusively'' supports the issue for which it is offered; moreover, the court properly declined to instruct the jury that it could consider the defendant's prior misconduct evidence only if it found that it conclu- sively supported the state's theory as to the defendant's motive, as motive is not an element of the crime of murder, and the court properly instructed the jury that, even if it credited certain testimony that the defendant was engaged in the sale of drugs on the night of the murder, the jury could consider that evidence only if it found that it logically and rationally supported the state's theory of motive. Argued January 10—officially released June 14, 2022

Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed. The victim had approached the defendant's home, where the defendant and three other individuals, including M, were talking on the porch. The victim abruptly took a soda bottle from the porch and immediately left the area without any confrontation. After the victim left, M and two others left the porch and began walking toward M's home, in the direction that the victim was headed. Meanwhile, the defendant went into his home, retrieved a rifle, and then caught up with M and the others. Near M's home, the victim turned around and locked eyes and exchanged words with the defendant. The defendant then fired his rifle at the victim, and the victim sustained two gunshot wounds. During jury selection, which occurred approxi- mately two and one-half years after the shooting, the prosecutor filed a supplemental notice of disclosure, in which she represented that she recently had become aware of the recovery of the rifle allegedly used by the defendant in the shooting and that she did not have that evidence in her case file until that morning. Although the rifle had been seized by the police in connection with an unrelated robbery that occurred two months after the shooting of the victim, the files in the unrelated robbery case and the defendant's murder case had not been cross- referenced. Although the trial court granted the defense a continuance, which the defense declined, the defendant requested, in light of the state's late disclosure, that the case be dismissed or that the rifle be excluded from evidence. The trial court declined to dismiss the case or to exclude the rifle from evidence. During the defendant's trial, the trial court excluded from evidence M's testimony that, as he was leaving the porch, an unidentified woman told him that the victim had assaulted or robbed her at knifepoint earlier in the day and a toxicology report showing that the victim had drugs in his system at the time of his death. The trial court also declined the defendant's request to charge the jury on his claim of self-defense. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court's rulings, rejected the defendant's claim that the trial court had abused its discretion in declining to dismiss the case or to exclude the rifle from evidence on the basis of the state's late disclosure, and affirmed the defendant's conviction. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in excluding as irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay M's testimony that an unidentified women told him prior to the shooting that the victim had assaulted or robbed her at knifepoint earlier that day: even if M's testimony was improperly excluded, any error in excluding that testi- mony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was overwhelm- ing circumstantial evidence demonstrating that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim, despite his assertion that he was merely trying to scare the victim into leaving the neighborhood rather than trying to kill him; moreover, although the jury may have inferred from M's testimony, if it had been admitted, that the defendant feared the victim, which would have been relevant to the defendant's motive, the probative value of the excluded testimony as to the defendant's specific intent was minimal, as evidence that the defendant feared the victim provided little to no context for why he shot at the victim multiple times; furthermore, there was no merit to the defendant's claim that the exclusion of M's testimony was harmful because it affected his entitlement to an instruction on self-defense, as the defendant ultimately failed to establish that he was entitled to such an instruction. 2. The defendant's claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in excluding a toxicology report showing that the victim had phencyclidine (PCP) in his system at the time of his death was unavailing; even if the trial court had improperly excluded the toxicology report insofar as it implicated his right to present a claim of self-defense, any error was harmless because, although the evidence would have allowed the jury to reasonably infer that the defendant reasonably feared the victim, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he reasonably believed that deadly force by the victim was imminent and that it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent the victim's use of such force. 3. The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had not violated the defendant's right to due process by declining to charge the jury on self-defense: although the jury reasonably could have concluded, on the basis of the evidence, that the defendant feared the victim and believed that he possessed a knife, there was no evidence from which the jury could have found that it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to have believed that the victim was using or was about to use deadly force against the defendant and that it was necessary for the defendant to use deadly force himself to prevent the victim from using such force, as there was nothing in the record to indicate that the victim threatened the defendant, acted aggressively, or reached for or brandished a weapon; moreover, the defendant's belief that the victim had a knife, by itself, did not suffice to show that the victim was immi- nently going to use it, and the victim's alleged possession of a knife, while he was standing still and not acting aggressively, did not demon- strate that the defendant reasonably believed that he needed to use a gun to prevent the victim from using the knife; furthermore, M's statement to the defendant while they were walking toward the victim that the defendant's ''life was on the line'' did not establish that the defendant would have suffered any harm or risk of harm if he had waited and not fired at the victim or had retreated, as there was no evidence in the record that would have allowed the jury to reasonably infer anything other than that the defendant acted preemptively, which the defense of self-defense did not encompass. 4. The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in declining the defendant's request to dismiss the case or to exclude the rifle as a sanction for the state's late disclosure of that evidence: this court had previously held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a continuance rather than excluding untimely disclosed evidence unless the defendant shows that his right to a speedy trial has been violated; in the present case, although the state's actions in failing to produce the rifle sooner resulted from a lack of due diligence, and although it was inappropriate for the trial court, which granted the defendant a continuance during the course of jury selection, to expect the defense to prepare a response to the new evi- dence while jury selection was ongoing, the defendant failed to establish that his right to a speedy trial would have been violated if he had accepted an offer of a reasonable continuance of two weeks, even if jury selection had to be paused or to begin anew, and the defendant failed to establish that those two weeks would have been insufficient for the defense to respond to the new evidence; moreover, in light of the trial court's undisputed finding of a lack of bad faith on the part of the prosecution, the trial court's offer of both a continuance and the continuation of plea bargaining in light of the new evidence, and the possibility that the defendant could have received a reasonable continu- ance without any impact to his right to a speedy trial, the exclusion of the rifle or the dismissal of the case was not the only appropriate remedy for the state's late disclosure; nevertheless, this court observed that the state has a duty to defendants, the public, and the courts to act with diligence in the disclosure of evidence, that courts should in the first instance encourage compliance with this obligation and penalize non- compliance, and that, although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss the case or to exclude the rifle, the trial court likely would have been well within its discretion to deny the admission of the rifle, especially in light of the fact that the state was apparently ready to proceed to trial without that piece of evidence. Argued January 13—officially released June 14, 2022

The respondent mother appealed from the decision of the trial court vesting permanent legal guardianship of the minor child, A, in her maternal grandmother. On the basis of the respondent mother's substance abuse, poor parenting, and unrelated mental health issues, the Department of Children and Families placed A in the home of her maternal grand- mother. Thereafter, the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, filed a neglect petition, and the trial court adjudicated A neglected and ordered her committed to the care and custody of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion for permanent legal guardianship, requesting that the trial court vest permanent legal guardianship of A in her maternal grandmother, to which the respondent mother objected. A hearing on the motion was held remotely via the Microsoft Teams platform amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the start of the mother's testimony, which occurred after the parties' closing arguments because the respondent mother indicated to her counsel at that point that she wanted ''to be heard,'' the petitioner's counsel noted, for the record, that the mother was on the phone but not on video. The court asked whether anyone had an objection to proceeding with the mother testifying via audio only. There was no objection, and the mother then briefly testified. On appeal from the trial court's decision vesting permanent legal guardianship of A in her maternal grandmother, held: 1. The respondent mother's unpreserved claim that she was denied due process of law under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution by virtue of the trial court's failure to ensure that she was present by two-way video technology was unavailing: the record was inadequate to review this claim insofar as the record was largely silent regarding the nature of the mother's participation in the virtual hearing, and, although the respondent mother relied on a statement by the peti- tioner's counsel indicating that, after the close of evidence, the mother appeared by audio and not video during her testimony, the record was silent as to whether she appeared by video at any point prior to that during the proceedings; moreover, because the record was silent as to what type of phone the mother used to participate in the hearing and whether the phone had video capability, this court could not determine whether the respondent mother simply chose to turn her video off or whether she was unable to participate via video as a result of inadequate technology; furthermore, the respondent mother waived any argument with respect to testifying via audio only when she, her counsel and her guardian ad litem failed to object, at the trial court's express invitation, to proceeding without video. 2. This court declined the respondent mother's invitation to invoke its super- visory authority over the administration of justice to adopt a rule requir- ing that a trial court, before conducting a virtual hearing or trial in a child protection case, ensure that the parties either appear by two-way videoconferencing technology or waive the right to do so, after a brief canvass: the respondent mother failed to demonstrate that the inability of parties to meaningfully participate in virtual child protection hearings or trials via two-way videoconferencing technology was a pervasive and significant problem that required this court's intervention; moreover, the record was not sufficiently robust to facilitate this court's exercise of its supervisory authority insofar as the record did not even indicate the manner in which the respondent mother appeared during the hearing, with the exception of during her testimony after closing arguments; furthermore, neither the respondent mother, her counsel, nor her guard- ian ad litem asked the trial court for technical accommodations, and the trial court was fully attentive to potential problems regarding the remote technology and took steps to ensure that the virtual format of the hearing did not negatively impact the respondent mother; nevertheless, although this court did not address whether a trial court may conduct virtual hearings or trials in circumstances other than during a pandemic, it did take the opportunity to emphasize the importance of ensuring equal access to justice and the proper functioning of technology when a trial court conducts a virtual hearing or trial and that equal access to justice was particularly significant in the context of virtual hearings and trials, given that certain groups, such as indigent litigants, communities of color, older people, and people with disabilities were more likely to lack access to reliable internet service and devices that are adequate to participate in remote court proceedings by videoconferencing tech- nology. Argued November 18, 2021—officially released June 20, 2022

The respondents appealed from the judgments of the trial court terminating their parental rights with respect to their minor children. After the children were adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, the petitioner sought to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to the children on the ground that the respondents had failed to rehabilitate. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a virtual trial on the termination petitions was held via Microsoft Teams. The respondents were represented by separate counsel and participated in the proceed- ings through audio and video means. The respondents joined the trial via a shared cell phone, outside the proximity of their counsel, but they were able to communicate with counsel through e-mail, text messages, and a messaging application. After the conclusion of the trial, the trial court terminated the respondents' parental rights. On appeal from the trial court's judgments, held: 1. The respondents' unpreserved claims that the trial court had violated their rights under article first, § 10, and article fifth, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution by conducting the termination of parental rights trial virtu- ally rather than in person, and that they had been denied their rights under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to physically confront the witnesses against them at the virtual trial were unavailing; this court, having addressed the same issues and underlying arguments in the companion case of In re Annessa J. (343 Conn. 642), adopted the reasoning and conclusions set forth in that decision, concluded, with respect to the respondents' claims under the state constitution, that the respondents failed to establish that there is a fundamental right to an in person termination of parental rights trial, and concluded, with respect to the respondents' due process claims, that, even if there is a right to in person confrontation under these circumstances, there was no factual record or factual findings on which this court could rely in order to determine whether that right was violated or whether the trial court correctly concluded that the state's interests were sufficiently great to warrant a virtual trial. 2. The record was inadequate to review the respondents' unpreserved claims, which they asserted either under the federal constitution or both the federal and state constitutions, that the state did not provide them with adequate devices and internet connection to participate both visually and by audio in the termination proceeding: the record was silent on, and, in some cases, undermined, the factual predicates necessary to evaluate the respondents' claims, as counsel for the respondent mother stated, during the trial, that the mother had more than one device, which contradicted the respondents' claim that they were forced to share the same device, the record indicated that the trial court took numerous steps to ensure that the respondents could meaningfully participate and communicate with their counsel throughout the trial, the record was largely silent as to the manner in which the respondents participated throughout the trial, including whether the respondents participated via audio or video or both at any given time, the record was devoid of any indication that the respondents' cell phone did not allow them to view the trial, and there was no indication that the respondents asked for technical assistance or accommodations from the trial court; neverthe- less, this court emphasized the importance of ensuring equal access to justice in the context of virtual hearings and trials and observed that those public policy considerations were identical to those that this court expressed in the companion case of In re Aisjaha N. (343 Conn. 709). Argued November 18, 2021—officially released June 20, 2022

Convicted of murder, conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree, unlawful restraint in the first degree, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed. The defendant had gone with two other individuals, V and C, to an automobile parts store in Bridgeport to confront the victim about a break-in in which the defendant believed the victim was involved. The victim was ultimately shot and killed on a street adjacent to the store parking lot. V testified at the defendant's trial that he had witnessed the defendant strike the victim in the face with a gun and drag him across the parking lot. V also testified that he had heard gunshots and witnessed the defendant drive away from the scene in his car. In addition, approximately two weeks after the shooting, the police approached V about the victim's death, and V thereafter used a cell phone to surreptitiously record a conversation between him and the defendant in which the defendant allegedly confessed to his commission of the murder. V returned to the police station, played the audio recording of the conversation on his cell phone for the police, and e-mailed an electronic copy of the recording to the police. The police transferred a copy of the recording to a DVD, which was admitted into evidence. V testified that he had listened to the recording on the DVD proffered by the state and that the recording had not been manipulated since it was recorded. V also testified that he no longer possessed the cell phone that he had used to record the conversation, and, as a result, the original recording was no longer available. Another eyewitness to the events in question, R, testified that he saw a man dressed in all white pistol whip the victim multiple times. The state and the defense entered into a stipulation, which was provided to the jury, that R was unable to identify the defendant as the individual whom R identified as wearing all white when, prior to trial, R was presented with a photographic array that included a photograph of the defendant. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the DVD containing the audio recording of his alleged confession: a. There was no merit to the defendant's claim that the recording was inadequately authenticated and, therefore, was inadmissible under the Connecticut Code of Evidence (§ 9-1): the fact that the recording prof- fered by the state was stored electronically did not require a meaningful departure from well established methods of authentication; moreover, the state made a prima facie showing of the recording's authenticity, as V testified that he personally recorded the conversation, that he subse- quently e-mailed an electronic copy of the recording to the police, that the recording proffered by the state had not been altered, and that he was familiar with the voices on that recording, and the detective who received the electronic copy of the recording testified that he had received that copy from V via e-mail and then transferred it to the DVD that the state was seeking to introduce; furthermore, once the state made its prima facie showing, the evidence was admissible, and the ultimate determination of authentication and what weight to give that evidence was for the jury. b. The defendant's claim that the unavailability of the original recording stored on V's cell phone rendered subsequent electronic copies of that recording inadmissible under the best evidence rule was unavailing; unchallenged testimony established that the original recording was no longer available, the defendant conceded that there was no indication that V lost or destroyed his cell phone with the intention of making the original recording unavailable for trial, and, in the absence of any claim that the state had destroyed or lost the original in bad faith in order to avoid producing it, the DVD containing an electronic copy of the original recording was admissible under the Connecticut Code of Evidence (§ 10- 3) as a form of secondary evidence of the contents of the original recording. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion when it directed the jury to disregard portions of defense counsel's closing argument concerning the prosecutor's failure to ask R for an in-court identification of the defendant, as any error on the part of the trial court was harmless: the state conceded R's inability to identify the defendant as the person whom he identified as the man in white through its stipulation to the fact that R was unable to pick the man wearing all white out of a photographic array that included a photograph of the defendant, defense counsel emphasized this point repeatedly during his closing argument without comment or contradiction by the prosecutor, and, therefore, this court could not conclude that the exclusion of a single, inferential argument relating to R's continued inability to identify the defendant at trial would have changed the result that the jury reached; moreover, it was undisputed that the state's case against the defendant did not include a definitive identification from any neutral witnesses, as all of the witnesses to the events in question could provide only a general description of the person in white, and R's testimony accounted for only a small portion of the evidence presented in the state's strong case against the defendant. Argued January 12—officially released June 21, 2022

Pursuant to the Home Improvement Act (§ 20-419 (4)), home improvement includes, inter alia, ''the repair, replacement, remodeling, alteration . . . [or] improvement . . . to any land or building or that portion thereof which is used or designed to be used as a private residence'' but does not include ''(A) [t]he construction of a new home . . . .'' The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant contractor for, inter alia, breach of contract and violations of the Home Improvement Act (§ 20-418 et seq.). The plaintiff had executed a contract with G Co. for the construction of a new house on land owned by the plaintiff. That contract permitted the plaintiff to contract for necessary site work with a separate contractor. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a separate contract providing that the defendant would perform certain site work in connection with the construction of the new house, including the digging of a hole for the foundation, the installa- tion of a septic tank and footing drains, and the construction of two retaining walls and two driveways. G Co. completed its construction of the house, and the plaintiff received a certificate of occupancy. At that time, however, the defendant had not completed the site work he was obligated to perform under the parties' contract. The planning and zoning commission of the town in which the plaintiff's property was located informed the plaintiff that the house would be approved for zoning compliance if certain site work was completed. The parties then entered into a second contract requiring the defendant to complete the work that was agreed on in the first contract by a certain date and at an additional cost. The plaintiff ultimately became dissatisfied with the quality and timing of the defendant's work, terminated their relationship, and hired another contractor to complete the site work and to remedy any flaws in the defendant's previous work. The trial court ruled in part for the plaintiff, concluding that the defendant had breached the contracts with the plaintiff by failing to complete the site work on schedule and by causing the plaintiff to incur additional expenses to repair and finish the work that the defendant was contractually required to perform. The court also concluded that the defendant had violated the Home Improvement Act by failing to comply with certain statutory requirements regarding the form of the contracts and that the defendant's violation of the Home Improvement Act constituted a per se violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.). The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment with respect to the plaintiff's breach of contract claim but reversed with respect to the plaintiff's claims under the Home Improvement Act and CUTPA. The Appellate Court concluded that the Home Improvement Act did not apply to the defendant's work, as that work fell within the new home exception set forth in § 20-419 (4) (A), and, consequently, the plaintiff failed to state a claim under both the Home Improvement Act and CUTPA. The plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court cor- rectly concluded that the Home Improvement Act did not apply to the defendant's work because that work fell within the new home exception set forth in § 20-419 (4) (A), and, accordingly, this court affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment: although the contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant were separate from the contract between the plaintiff and G Co. to construct the new house, the work the defendant agreed to perform was within the scope of the work contemplated by the contract between the plaintiff and G Co., as many of the projects the defendant was obligated to complete were expressly included in the contract between the plaintiff and G Co., and, thus, the work the defen- dant agreed to perform would have been completed by G Co. if the plaintiff had not elected to contract out the site work to the defendant; moreover, G Co.'s construction work could not have proceeded without the defendant's work, as G Co.'s work depended physically and tempo- rally on the defendant's foundation work, the defendant was required to communicate with G Co. throughout the defendant's performance of the site work, and the first contract between the plaintiff and the defen- dant specified that the defendant was to complete his work within a certain time for the purpose of facilitating G Co.'s construction of the house, and, thus, both the close timing and the extensive communication required between the defendant and G Co. led to the conclusion that the defendant's work was sufficiently interrelated with the construction of the house; furthermore, much of the work the defendant performed contributed directly to the habitability of the house, and that work was necessary in order for the house to comply with the town zoning requirements. Argued December 20, 2021—officially released June 28, 2022

The plaintiff, whose marriage to the defendant had been dissolved, appealed from the trial court's postdissolution decision to grant the plaintiff's motion for modification of alimony and the defendant's motion for contempt, and to award the defendant past due alimony and attorney's fees. When the parties' marriage was dissolved in 2009, the plaintiff was employed as the chief executive officer of a major corporation and was paid a base annual salary and bonuses. The parties' separation agreement, which had been incorporated into the judgment of dissolu- tion, required the plaintiff to pay the defendant alimony in the amount of 30 percent of his ''gross annual base income from employment'' and 25 percent of his gross cash bonus. The plaintiff subsequently left that corporation and, in 2015, began working as a commercial real estate broker for C Co. Under C Co.'s compensation plan, the plaintiff received annual draws on future commissions, initially in the amount of $35,000 a year, and, if he did not earn commissions sufficient to cover the draws, he was obligated to pay the difference back to C Co. The plaintiff elected to have the draws deposited into a bank account in the name of a limited liability company, S Co., that he had created in 2014. The plaintiff also deposited into that account money he earned in connection with certain consulting work he performed on the side. The plaintiff notified the defendant when his employment at C Co. began, and she initially agreed to accept monthly alimony in the amount of $875, or 30 percent of the $35,000 annual draw. The plaintiff, however, continued to pay her only $875 per month, even though his annual draw rate increased significantly between 2015 and 2019. In response, the defendant filed her motion for contempt and sought payment of accrued, unpaid alimony that purport- edly was owed under the separation agreement. The plaintiff, on the other hand, sought to modify his alimony obligation due to a substantial change in circumstances relating to the nature of his employment with C Co. After a hearing, the trial court granted both motions and awarded the defendant past due alimony and attorney's fees. With respect to the plaintiff's motion to modify his alimony obligation, the court replaced the requirement under the separation agreement that he pay the defendant 30 percent of his gross annual base income from employment with a fixed alimony obligation of $6500 per month. The court also found the plaintiff in contempt for wilfully violating his alimony obligation under the separation agreement. On appeal from the trial court's decision, held: 1. The plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that the trial court incorrectly had interpreted the separation agreement and found that the money the plaintiff received from C Co. in the form of draws constituted income that was subject to alimony: the agreement's clear and unambiguous definition of ''gross annual base income from employment'' was without limitation and included income the plaintiff actually received as compen- sation for, or by reason of, past, present or future employment, from any and all sources, and nothing in the agreement indicated that it contemplated the payment of alimony derived from traditional salary income but not from commissions or consulting fees; moreover, although the term ''income'' was not defined in the separation agreement, and, therefore, that term was ambiguous, the trial court's determination that the plaintiff's draws from C Co. constituted income was not clearly erroneous, as the draws were clearly from his employment as a real estate broker, they were listed as payroll when deposited into S Co.'s bank account, the plaintiff reported the draws as gross income on his personal tax returns, C Co. referred to the plaintiff as an employee and to his income as earnings on its pay statements, the plaintiff would have to pay back unearned draws if his employment relationship with C Co., he presented no evidence about how he earned commissions or about whether C Co. ever recovered, demanded or threatened to recover unearned draws from him such that the draws should be treated as loans rather than income, and he treated the money he received from C Co. as income in every relevant way, except to pay alimony to the defendant; furthermore, the trial court's skepticism toward the plaintiff's calculation of his alimony obligation under the separation agreement after he started working for C Co. was well founded, as the defendant failed to established how he earned his commissions, how much of them were applied to his draws, and why he did not pay alimony on commissions he earned. 2. The trial court correctly interpreted the separation agreement and treated the money the plaintiff earned from C Co. and from other entities as a consultant, which ultimately was deposited into S Co.'s bank account, as the plaintiff's personal income that was subject to alimony: the trial court's factual findings that the plaintiff treated the money he earned at C Co. and for his consulting work as his own income and that such earnings constituted income subject to alimony were not clearly errone- ous because, although the plaintiff chose to have his draws from C Co. and the money he earned from consulting deposited into S Co.'s bank account, he could not structure the receipt of his income and use the corporate form to avoid his alimony obligation; moreover, many of S Co.'s claimed business deductions appeared to be personal expenses, S Co.'s actual business activities appeared to consist only of taking money received by the plaintiff and finding ways to claim deductions and expenses to shelter or hide it from the defendant, and nothing in the separation agreement addressed business related expenses; further- more, although it may be advantageous for tax purposes to set up a limited liability company, such as S Co., that fact had no bearing on the determination of whether income is properly subject to alimony. 3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the plaintiff's alimony obligation by requiring the plaintiff to pay to the defendant a fixed amount of $6500 per month: contrary to the plaintiff's claim that the trial court considered only his past gross income and improperly modified his alimony obligation on the basis of an earning capacity not supported by the record, the court considered all of the statutory (§ 46b- 82 (a)) factors that a court must consider in determining an alimony award and found that there had been a change of circumstances that necessitated a modification to the plaintiff's alimony obligation, namely, that the plaintiff became a consultant and an independent contractor with much more complicated finances, that his base salary was reduced and his bonuses eliminated, and that he remarried and relocated to a state without any state income tax; moreover, the record contained sufficient evidence to support the court's findings regarding the plain- tiff's earning capacity, the court based its decision on the income of both parties and their income earning potential, and its order provided for a second look at the plaintiff's alimony obligation when he reached the age of sixty-five; furthermore, the court expressly noted that its alimony determination was based on a net earning capacity of $250,000, which was markedly less than the plaintiff's past gross annual income of $350,000. 4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the plaintiff in contempt for breaching his alimony obligation to the defendant: it was sufficiently clear from the terms of the separation agreement that the plaintiff was required to pay alimony on commissions he earned and on other consulting income, he did not pay such alimony, and it was untenable to conclude that he did not wilfully fail to fully comply with his obligation under the separation agreement to pay alimony on the basis of his gross annual base income from employment, in whatever form received and from any and all sources, including commissions and consulting income paid to him or deposited into S Co.'s bank account; moreover, it was abundantly clear that this failure to comply did not involve a good faith dispute or legitimate misunderstanding, as the plaintiff engaged in self-help by unilaterally reducing his alimony obliga- tion when he first began his employment with C Co., and he sought court approval to modify that obligation only after the defendant moved for contempt; furthermore, the fact that the plaintiff informed the defen- dant, when the plaintiff started working for C Co., that he was adjusting his alimony payments due to the complicated nature of the payment structure at C Co. should have alerted him to the need to seek the advice of the court concerning the future calculation of his alimony obligation, and the plaintiff's concession that he did not pay alimony on his commis- sions and income from his consulting work undermined any contention that any ambiguity concerning his alimony obligation entitled him to resort to self-help rather than seeking the advice of the court. Argued February 16—officially released June 28, 2022

The respondent mother appealed from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, N, M, and D. The petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, filed petitions to terminate the respondent parents' parental rights after the children had been adjudicated neglected, committed to the petition- er's custody, and placed in preadoptive foster homes. The removal of the children from the family home was precipitated in part by the hostile, paranoid, and erratic behavior of the respondent father, who had threat- ened a social worker, refused necessary medical treatment for D and special education services for N and M, and withdrew N and M from school. During the trial on the petitions, the attorney appointed to repre- sent the children indicated that M and D wished to remain with their respective foster parents and that N wished to be reunited with the respondents, but only if they were together as a couple. In terminating the respondents' parental rights with respect to all three children, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Department of Children and Families had made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with the respondents but that the respondents had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation. The court also determined that termination of the respondents' parental rights was in the best interest of each child. On appeal from the trial court's judgments, the respondent mother claimed that the children had a constitutional right to conflict free representation and that the trial court had violated that right by failing to inquire into whether their attorney had a conflict of interest predicated on the fact that M and D wanted to remain in their respective foster homes, whereas N conditionally expressed an interest in being reunified with the respondents. Held that this court declined to determine whether children have a constitutional right to conflict free representation in child dependency proceedings and whether the children's competing goals regarding reunification with the respondents triggered the trial court's duty in the present case to inquire into their attorney's ability to advocate effectively on behalf of each child because, even if this court assumed that such a right existed, any violation of that right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the result of the trial would have been the same if the children had been represented by separate counsel: N's desire to be reunited with the respondents was contingent on the respondents being together as a couple at the time of the trial, and the record clearly indicated that there was no possibility that the court would have permitted the children to return to the respondent mother's care in light of its findings concern- ing her failure to rehabilitate, her lack of candor regarding her relation- ship with the respondent father, and her inability or unwillingness to protect the children from the father, with whom the court would not have permitted the children to live under any circumstances; moreover, this court declined the respondent mother's invitation to treat the trial court's failure to inquire into the attorney's alleged conflict of interest as a structural error subject to automatic reversal, as the significant differences between child dependency proceedings and other judicial proceedings, in addition to the policy of avoiding undue delays in connec- tion with the long term placement of children, militated against applying a per se reversible error rule in child dependency cases; furthermore, a per se rule of automatic reversal was unwarranted when, as in the present case, the reviewing court can and does determine that the claimed error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and reversal under the plain error doctrine was equally unwarranted given that the respondent mother could not demonstrate that the failure to reverse the trial court's judgments would result in manifest injustice. Argued February 14—officially released June 29, 2022