Each month, the Connecticut Supreme Court grants a number of petitions for certification to appeal from the Connecticut Appellate Court. When certification is granted, the Court identifies the specific legal question—or questions—it will review.
Petitions for certification to appeal are governed by Practice Book §§ 84-1 through 84-11. Certification allows the Connecticut Supreme Court to review selected Appellate Court decisions and address legal issues that may warrant further clarification.
These orders offer an early look at the issues the Supreme Court may soon clarify in Connecticut law.
Each month, this post tracks newly granted petitions for certification by the Connecticut Supreme Court, including the questions the Court has agreed to review.
Certified Questions Granted in January and February 2026
During January and February 2026, the Connecticut Supreme Court granted several petitions for certification to appeal. The certified questions are organized generally by practice area for ease of reference.
Civil – Bar Discipline/Disbarment
Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Enrico Vaccaro, 236 Conn. App. 153 (AC 47336), is granted as to the respondent’s claim of justiciability and denied without prejudice as to the other issues presented for review. It is further ordered that the case is remanded to the Appellate Court for consideration of whether it should dismiss the appeal and vacate the trial court’s judgment in light of this court’s decision in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Vaccaro, 353 Conn. 793, 347 A.3d 856 (2025).
Decided February 26, 2026
Civil – Contracts/Other
David Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc., et al., 235 Conn. App. 608 (AC 47026),
“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the term ‘costs,’ as used in General Statutes § 31-72, is limited to statutorily taxable costs, and does not include actual litigation expenses?”
Decided January 20, 2026
Robin Bogda v. Brian Bochenek, Executor (Estate of Barbara H. Uterstaedt), 236 Conn. App. 412 (AC 47825):
“Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of the trial court’s determination that, as a matter of law, the defendant’s pursuit of arbitration was not prohibited by the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement?”
Decided February 26, 2026
Civil – Miscellaneous/All Other
Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., et al, 236 Conn. App. 330 (AC 47591):
“Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the trial court had properly denied the defendants’ motions for attorney’s fees incurred in defense of an action that was governed by the law of Turks and Caicos Islands, on the ground that entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees is a procedural matter governed by Connecticut law?”
Decided January 27, 2026
Civil – Torts/All Other
Lynnette Richardson, Administratrix (Estate of J’allen Jones), et al. v. Scott Semple et al., 236 Conn. App. 630 (AC 48427):
“Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss the interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of the motion to intervene fi led by the proposed intervenor, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Connecticut, Inc., on the ground that the proposed intervenor did not allege a colorable claim of intervention?”
Decided February 26, 2026
Criminal/Habeas
Andre Desmond White v. Commissioner of Correction, 236 Conn. App. 67 (AC 46901):
“Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the habeas court had not abused its discretion in excluding as irrelevant evidence that the fi rearm used during the commission of the underlying crimes was not a ‘real gun’?”
Decided January 6, 2026
State v. Daren S., 236 Conn. App. 377 (A.C. 46859):
“Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony concerning the complainant’s delayed reporting of three instances of uncharged sexual abuse in connection with sexual assault evidence admitted only under § 4-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence as prior misconduct evidence?”
Decided January 27, 2026
Christopher Lisboa v. Commissioner of Correction, 236 Conn. App. 23 (AC 47034):
“Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that the trial court correctly determined that the petitioner had failed to present sufficient evidence to establish good cause to file a late petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470, based on the ineffective assistance of his prior habeas counsel?”
Decided February 19, 2026
Employment
Timothy Begley v. State of Connecticut et al., 234 Conn. App. 820 (AC 47188):
“Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the trial court’s decision to render summary judgment in favor of the defendant James Rovella on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation in support of his claim of employment discrimination?”
Decided January 13, 2026
Housing
Erika K. Christensen v. FLT Canal Place FLTE, LLC, et al., 236 Conn. App. 905 (AC 47663):
“Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-14h?”
Decided February 19, 2026
FLT Canal Place FLTE, LLC v. Erika Christensen, 236 Conn. App. 905 (AC 48453):
“Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s judgment of possession for the plaintiff when the trial court had (1) determined that the plaintiff’s summary process action was not retaliatory in violation of General Statutes § 47a-20, (2) declined to consider the defendant’s objection to the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order on the ground that the defendant failed to fi le her objection within three days of the fi ling of the motion pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-26c, and (3) granted the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order relieving the plaintiff from having to disclose to the defendant the present or last known address and present or last known place of employment of a former employee of the plaintiff in accordance with Practice Book § 13-1 (c) (3)?”
Decided February 19, 2026
Planning and Zoning
Gregory Sargent v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Fairfield, 236 Conn. App. 269 (AC 47532):
“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that there were no conditions attached to a 2011 certificate of variance issued by the town zoning enforcement officer, which allowed the intervening defendants’ proposed residence to exceed the maximum building height by 1.33 feet, because the line on the certificate of variance designated for conditions was left blank and there was no other indication in the certificate that approval was granted with conditions?
“2. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the 1.33 foot height variance permitted under the 2011 variance was not rendered moot by virtue of a 2013 amendment to the Fairfield Zoning Regulations, which increased the maximum building height of the intervening defendants’ proposed residence by 2 feet, making the height permitted under the 2011 variance allowed as of right?”
Decided January 20, 2026
Estates/Trusts/Probate
Lisa C. Khan v. Ahmed Khan, 234 Conn. App. 325 (AC 46664):
“Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the trial court had properly calculated the damages owed by the defendant Lisa C. Khan in connection with the trust action?”
Decided February 10, 2026
Why These Certifications Matter
When the Connecticut Supreme Court grants certification, it signals that the Court sees a significant legal issue worth reviewing. In many cases, the Court limits review to a narrow question of law that may clarify an unsettled area of Connecticut jurisprudence.
For trial attorneys and appellate practitioners, certification orders offer an early indication of legal issues the Connecticut Supreme Court may soon address or refine.
Tracking Connecticut Appellate Developments
If you follow Connecticut appellate developments, monitoring certification grants can provide insight into the legal issues moving through the state’s highest court.
For additional analysis of Connecticut appellate decisions and procedural developments, explore other posts on A Brief Review: A Connecticut Appellate Law Blog.
If you are handling a case that may involve appellate review—or want guidance evaluating a potential appeal—contact Connecticut Appellate Law Firm to discuss your options.
