bbb-attorneys-v2

Seeking Justice After a Tragic Police Shooting During a Mental Health Crisis

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 19:57:01 GMT

BBB Attorneys represents the family seeking accountability after a fatal police response to a mental health crisis.

On February 19, 2026, a routine welfare check in Hartford turned into a devastating tragedy when police officers fatally shot 53-year-old Everard Walker, a Connecticut man experiencing a severe mental health crisis. Law enforcement had been called to assist mental health professionals conducting an evaluation at Walker’s Capitol Avenue apartment. According to police reports, Walker pulled a knife during the interaction, and an officer fired several shots, killing him at the scene.

In the days since, Walker’s family has stepped forward, expressing deep concerns about how the situation was handled. They argue that the police response escalated what should have been a medical intervention into a lethal encounter. During a press conference at Hartford City Hall on February 25, Walker’s family—represented by Ken Krayeske of BBB Attorneys—called the use of force “unnecessary” and stressed that the original call to 211 was intended to secure support, not a police arrest.

Attorney Krayeske emphasized that Walker’s loved ones had hoped for a compassionate, non-violent resolution to a medical crisis. He criticized the deployment of multiple armed officers and the decision to resort to lethal force rather than prioritizing de-escalation or non-lethal tools. According to Krayeske, the family’s goal is accountability and reform to prevent similar tragedies from unfolding in the future.

Now, Walker’s family is weighing a wrongful death lawsuit to address their concerns, challenging the city to reevaluate how police and mental health emergencies intersect. BBB Attorneys continue to advocate fiercely on behalf of the family, urging systemic change and justice for a man whose final moments were marred by a crisis that demanded care, not confrontation.

Additional Sources:

Family Files Lawsuit After Fatal Ambulance Crash in Farmington

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 17:49:36 GMT

Lawsuit claims both drivers acted negligently in fatal 2023 Farmington crash

The family of 19-year-old Cassidy Lawlor has filed a wrongful death lawsuit following a fatal crash involving a pickup truck and an ambulance in Farmington, Connecticut, in October 2023. The lawsuit, filed in Hartford Superior Court, names both drivers involved, the ambulance company, and others as defendants.

According to court documents, Lawlor was a passenger in a pickup truck driven by Alexander Vassiliou that was traveling west on Route 4 on October 23, 2023. The vehicle collided with an AMR (American Medical Response) ambulance driven by EMT Caitlin Abrantes, who was heading east with the vehicle’s lights and sirens activated.

The lawsuit alleges that Abrantes attempted a left turn near the Interstate 84 off-ramp and entered the path of the oncoming pickup, causing the crash. It claims the turn was made in an unsafe and illegal location and that she failed to yield the right-of-way. It also alleges that Vassiliou was driving at an excessive speed and did not yield to the emergency vehicle.

Lawlor suffered severe injuries and was airlifted to Hartford Hospital, where she died on November 26, 2023—more than a month after the crash. Vassiliou was later arrested on multiple charges, including negligent homicide with a motor vehicle and possession of a controlled substance. He has pleaded not guilty.

The lawsuit seeks more than $15,000 in damages to cover medical and funeral expenses. In addition to Abrantes, Vassiliou, and AMR, the suit also names Lawlor’s auto insurance company, USAA General Indemnity Company, and the registered owner of the pickup truck.

The case remains pending in Hartford Superior Court.

Additional Sources:

Families Blocked from Suing State After Fatal I-84 Crash Response Delay

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 17:30:10 GMT

State denies lawsuit over trooper’s delayed response in fatal I-84 crash.

The families of Jayan Bryan and D'Yanna Wallace have been denied permission to sue the State of Connecticut following a 2021 crash off Interstate 84, where a delayed response by a state trooper may have impacted the outcome. The Office of the Claims Commissioner rejected the families' request to file a lawsuit, and a legislative committee later upheld that decision.

On February 20, 2021, Bryan and Wallace’s car went off I-84 near the I-691 interchange, landing out of sight in a dimly lit area. A Connecticut state trooper responded to reports of debris on the highway around 1:47 a.m. and moved a piece of the car — a trunk lid with a license plate — off the road. However, the wreck was not located until 7:24 a.m. when daylight made the vehicle more visible. Bryan was deceased when emergency personnel arrived; Wallace survived with serious injuries.

The families, represented by BBB Attorneys and Attorney Peter Bowman, sought to sue for $100 million, arguing that a more thorough search could have led to earlier medical assistance. In rejecting the claim, Deputy Claims Commissioner Edward McAnaney found the trooper made multiple attempts to locate the source of the debris and was not negligent. The decision noted that the vehicle was traveling at high speed, had gone over a guardrail, and that both occupants had elevated blood alcohol levels.

Attorney Bowman and co-counsel argued that the response was insufficient and reflected gaps in training and procedures. They also stated that locating the vehicle sooner may have changed the outcome.

Although the state denied liability, the families have called for reforms in how the Connecticut State Police handle accident investigations and emergency response procedures.

Additional Sources:

CT DOC Delayed Man’s Treatment as Cancer Worsened, Suit Claims

Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:16:49 GMT

Bridgeport Man Sues CT Department of Correction Over Delayed Cancer Treatment

Bridgeport resident Glenn London is suing the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC), alleging medical neglect that led to the removal of his bladder, lymph nodes, and prostate after a delayed cancer diagnosis.

London, 61, was first incarcerated in January 2023. At intake, he reported prior symptoms of blood in his urine and a possible cancer diagnosis from the VA. Despite repeated requests, London says he received no meaningful medical care for months. When he was finally seen at UConn Health in August, doctors discovered a Stage 3A cancerous mass “the size of a golf ball” in his bladder.

London’s attorney, Ken Krayeske of BBB Attorneys, called the situation “unconscionable” and noted it followed years of documented DOC medical neglect, including the cancer cases of Wayne World, Billy Bennett, and Patsy Camara. “I want a judge to hear what the state put Glenn through,” Krayeske said.

Following 28 rounds of chemotherapy, London underwent major surgery after his release in early 2024. He now lives with a urology bag and limited mobility.

London is seeking $10 million in damages, but says his real goal is to prevent future inmates from experiencing the same delays in critical care. His story highlights ongoing concerns about medical treatment inside Connecticut prisons.

The Department of Correction has declined to comment on pending litigation.

Lamont Stops Release of CT Dept. of Correction Medical Malpractice Report

Thu, 05 Jun 2025 17:37:35 GMT

An effort to compel Connecticut’s Department of Correction to release an independent report on some of the worst medical malpractice and neglect cases that happened in its custody was halted after Gov. Ned Lamont’s office requested a provision calling for the release be removed from legislation as the General Assembly’s 2025 session drew to a close.

The report was commissioned by the Department of Correction in 2017 for $63,000 and completed within the year by the Criminal Justice Institute Inc., according to an article in the Hartford Courant . The report examined 25 cases that resulted in lawsuits or were considered likely to result in a lawsuit.

A provision of the bill, a broad piece of legislation put forward by the legislature’s Judiciary Committee earlier this year, called for the Department of Correction to post the entire report online within a year of the bill’s passage. It also would have required the department to send any medical documentation the report collected that may have been pertinent in a medical malpractice case to the victim’s family.

In addition, the legislation would have required the Department of Public Health to open an investigation into each case detailed in the report, and the commissioner would have been assigned to determine whether any physicians involved in the cases be disciplined for their actions. The report was expected to identify 25 medical personnel to be investigated by the Connecticut Department of Health.

The provision was jettisoned from the legislation during negotiations between the two legislative chambers and the governor’s office. Other portions of the Judiciary Committee’s bill were rolled into the legislature’s sprawling budget bill, which passed both chambers earlier this week.

Rob Blanchard, a spokesperson for Gov. Ned Lamont’s Office, said the medical malpractice report was “commissioned by the Attorney General in preparation for litigation,” suggesting it needed to be kept confidential under attorney-client privilege. The Department of Correction also referred to attorney-client privilege in a statement to The Connecticut Mirror.

Cara Passaro, chief of staff for the attorney general’s office, said while the office had “concerns” about making the report public, “it is not something that rose to the level of asking legislators to remove it.”

Ken Krayeske, a civil rights attorney who has litigated multiple cases against the Department of Correction for medical malpractice, told CT Mirror in an email that Lamont’s request to keep the report confidential was “another example of Governor Lamont’s repeated failure on prison management and oversight.”

Krayeske said in an interview that the release of the report would have represented a “victory over darkness.”

Cases against the department

The Department of Correction has been the subject of many lawsuits over the last 10 years regarding poor medical care that has led to the suffering and sometimes death of individuals in custody.

These include the case of Wayne World , whose skin cancer was repeatedly misdiagnosed by the Department of Correction, and who received a $1.3 million settlement from the state. It also includes Karon Nealy Jr. , whose family received $1.65 million from the state after the 19-year-old died from lupus. Krayeske and current Correction Ombuds DeVaughn Ward were both involved in litigating the cases of World and Neely.

Krayeske said he had been able to get access, through a federal lawsuit, to an additional 20 cases of inadequate medical care that occurred within the Department of Correction.

One was the case of Billy Bennett , who died from cancer of the larynx in 2017. Krayeske said Bennett had begged for medical care for months. By the time he finally ended up in the emergency room, in January 2017, the cancer had reached stage four and Bennett had difficulty breathing because of a tumor in his throat. He died eleven months later.

A second was the case of Patrick “Patsy” Camara , who complained of nosebleeds for months before finally being diagnosed with stage 4 nasopharyngeal carcinoma. By the time the cancer was discovered, a tumor located in his sinus cavity had grown to the size of a baseball and had eaten through his brain plate. He died in 2019.

Documents reviewed by the CT Mirror show that the additional cases — individuals with cancer, neurological disorders, hepatitis C, fractures and spinal stenosis, among other things — revealed delays or denials of care, failures to pursue recommended follow-up care, inaccurate diagnoses, as well as “negligence” and “deliberate indifference” to patients’ conditions.

The cases outlined in the report all occurred when the University of Connecticut Health Center, under UConn’s Correctional Managed Health Care, was responsible for the medical care of incarcerated people in the state. In 2016, a consultant was hired to conduct a review of the system, which had drawn a growing number of complaints about the quality of care people in custody were receiving.

After two decades of a no-bid contract with UConn, the Department of Correction took over providing health care to incarcerated individuals beginning in July 2018.

Krayeske said releasing the report, even now, many years after it was conducted, “would mean that we have, as a society, the confidence to own up to bad policy.”

“It’s important, in this age of the destruction of objective reality, for us to be able to say, as a government, ‘We made a poor choice. We hurt families, and we’re sorry,’” Krayeske added.

Ward said not having the report released would prevent families from being able to have closure, and to “seek justice in a meaningful way.”

“I think it’s unfortunate for the individuals and for the families that were subjected to what has clearly been identified as horrible medical care,” he said. To allow the families of incarcerated people to sue the state for what their relatives had undergone would be “monumental,” Ward said.

As the legislative session reached its end, Ward said he had a reason to be hopeful because lawmakers had included sections in the budget bill granting his office greater oversight over medical care in the Department of Correction. This includes allowing the office to conduct investigations into any complaints around health care and to collect data on things like appointment wait times and access to medication and medical care.

The bill also requires the Department of Correction to provide mental health assessments for incarcerated people when they first enter the department.

“I hope, through all of that suffering that those individuals may have went through, we get some good policy,” said Ward.

Alleged Illegal Restraint of Autistic Son at East Hartford School Leads to Lawsuit

Thu, 22 May 2025 16:01:20 GMT

EAST HARTFORD, Conn. — An East Hartford mother, Shenika Carroll, is demanding accountability after alleging that her 6-year-old son, Jahrell, was illegally restrained by staff at Woodland School multiple times in late 2023 and early 2024. The disturbing incidents, which were captured on school surveillance video, are now the subject of a lawsuit filed in Hartford Superior Court.

Jahrell, who has been diagnosed with autism and ADHD, began attending Woodland School in fall 2023. The public school offers therapeutic programs for children with special needs and promotes behavioral interventions and individualized education. Initially, Carroll believed it would be a good fit. “I felt at ease,” she said. “I wanted to see how he would succeed in this program.”

That changed just before the winter break when Jahrell began mentioning frequent visits to the “MC Room,” which Carroll later learned stood for “Mindfulness Center.” According to staff, it was a space for students to calm down when dysregulated. But Jahrell soon expressed that he didn’t feel welcome there and claimed staff used the room as a threat: “If you don’t stop, I’m going to restrain you.”

Carroll raised concerns with the school and demanded answers. On January 5, 2024, she received a phone call from Woodland staff apologizing and informing her that video evidence existed of the incidents. What she saw next shocked her.

In the videos, Jahrell is seen being dragged by the arms, pushed, and forced into the padded MC Room. On several occasions, male staff members pinned him into a corner, holding his arms above his head for extended periods. One clip from December 20, 2023, reportedly shows a staff member rolling him in a mat and dumping him on his head.

“It was heartbreaking,” Carroll said. “My son was doing nothing wrong.”

The school launched an internal investigation and notified the Department of Children and Families (DCF). The East Hartford Police Department also reviewed the case, documenting that staff had gone “hands-on” with Jahrell on four separate days. Despite this, criminal charges were never filed. Police say their request for arrest warrants was rejected by the court.

Carroll’s attorney, Michael Pedevillano of BBB Attorneys LLC, says the actio ns were illegal under Connecticut law.

“Connecticut law prohibits restraints of children in schools except in very limited cases, such as when there is an imminent danger to themselves or others,” said Pedevillano. “There is nothing in the video that suggests Jahrell was a danger.”

He also said the physical restraint technique used on Jahrell — described as an improvised maneuver — was not part of Woodland’s approved Physical Management Training (PMT) protocols. Moreover, the school failed to notify Carroll within the 24-hour window required by law when restraints or seclusion are used.

A 51-page DCF report substantiated emotional and physical neglect by six staff members. In response, one staff member was terminated, two resigned, and others faced demotion, relocation, or administrative leave.

Carroll has filed a civil suit against the Town of East Hartford, the Board of Education, former principal Licia McKnight, and seven staff members. The suit alleges that Jahrell suffered “physical, mental, and emotional injuries” due to the school’s actions.

Despite her calls for justice, Carroll says the police did not take the case seriously. East Hartford police declined further comment, but confirmed their role in submitting the arrest warrant applications.

East Hartford Public Schools Superintendent Thomas Anderson issued a statement saying the district prioritizes student safety but will not comment due to ongoing litigation.

Today, Jahrell is enrolled in a new school and doing better. Carroll hopes her experience encourages other parents to speak up.

“As stressful as this process has been, it has fueled me to keep going,” she said. “These are my babies, and I am their first advocate.”

Smithfield Teen Recounts Being Run Over by Haunted Hayride

Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:19:23 GMT

SMITHFIELD, R.I (WPRI) — Giada Lanzieri will never forget the night of October 28, 2023.

It was the night the Smithfield teen wound up pinned underneath a haunted hayride .

Lanzieri told 12 News she loved working seasonally as a scare actor at the Seven Cedars Farm Haunted Hayride.

That night, Lanzieri said her job was to jump onto the tractor, which was towing a trailer full of thrill-seekers ready to be spooked.

“I don’t remember much, but I remember jumping on it,” Lanzieri recalled.

Lanzieri said everything went black, and then she awoke to a horrifying realization.

“Somehow the tractor wheel was on my back,” Lanzieri said. “I remember throwing up and everyone was saying to stop the tractor.'”

“It stopped, but it was still on my back,” the teenager continued. “Everybody got off and someone lifted it up off of me.”

Lanzieri’s parents were just a short drive away, preparing to leave the house and head to the Smithfield farm.

“We had tickets with some friends and were going to see her,” Giada’s father, Robert Lanzieri, said. “We actually had tickets for the 8:30 p.m. [hayride] and it was 8 p.m. when we got the call.”

That call came from Lanzieri’s phone, but it wasn’t her on the other end.

“I picked it up and it was her friend,” her father recalled. “She said, ‘Giada got run over by a tractor.'”

Rob, in disbelief, asked her friend if she had told the owners of Seven Cedars Farm what had happened.

“She was like, ‘Yes, yes, yes,'” he continued. “I said, ‘Alright, we are on our way.’ At that point, I was just laser focused on getting there.”

Her mother Kerri Lanzieri remembers running through the woods trying to get to her daughter.

“I could not get to her,” Kerri said. “She rode in the ambulance by herself and I heard later that she was asking for ‘Mom.'”

“That was probably one of the worst moments to have to experience as a parent,” she added.

Giada suffered a number of injuries, including a concussion, internal trauma and fractures to her lower extremities, according to her family. The first time the Lanzieris saw their daughter was in the emergency room at Hasbro Children’s Hospital.

“She was this shade of gray and … she was definitely in shock,” Kerri said. “We just stayed there by her side.”

Seven Cedars Farm’s Haunted Hayride cut their season short that year and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) launched an investigation into what happened.

12 News has learned that the farm was cited for failing to “ensure that scare actor employees were protected from struck-by and crushing hazards,” and for not having “an infirmary, clinic or hospital used for the treatment of injured employees.” OSHA confirmed that the second violation was dropped through a settlement.

Seven Cedars Farm was also ordered to pay a $7,000 fine and implement additional safety precautions to protect their employees. 12 News reached out to the farm, which declined to comment. The Haunted Hayride is back up and running this year.

Giada spent four days in the hospital and returned to Smithfield High School in a wheelchair a month later. By February, she was back on the soccer pitch.

“It was awesome. She’s a miracle,” Kerri said. “Her first game was on a brand new field in our town and we were able to see her get a goal that night.”

The Lanzieris, who look back on what happened to their daughter in shock and horror, hope sharing their story will prevent this from happening to anyone else.

“It’s important as parents that you’re involved in the hiring process,” Robert said. “Just make sure there’s a safety plan an emergency plan in place when your child is going for a job”

The Lanzieris have hired an attorney on their daughter’s behalf and plan to sue the farm within the coming month. Their lawyer explained that the family is not only seeking compensation for Giada’s injuries, but also changes to ensure the safety of other employees at seasonal attractions.

Smithfield teen recovers after haunted hayride accident, family pushes for safety reforms

Connecticut Department of Corrections audit has startling findings

Wed, 02 Oct 2024 15:40:28 GMT

CONNECTICUT (WTNH) — A 46-page Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) state audit looking at internal procedures is raising some eyebrows.

Auditors spent 3,893 hours on the project, resulting in a total of 21 findings: 20 of them repeat findings.

A startling finding was that one worker who was owed $3,032 dollars in holiday pay, instead got $163,720 by mistake. Another finding looked at documentation for overtime totaling over $335,000. Auditors found discrepancies and missing documents. This finding has been reported in the last 5 audit reports.

State Auditor John Geragosian said that the audit, released last month, is for fiscal years June 2020 and 2021.

“I think the common thread in this audit is lack of accounting or accountability…for certain rules and regulations that the agency is supposed to follow,” Geragosian said.

He said that the DOC is always cooperative.

“In every one of our audits the agency gets a chance to respond to our findings and recommendations and there’s a discussion along the way,” Geragosian said.

Civil rights attorney Ken Krayeske has been waging legal battles with corrections on behalf of inmates for nearly 10 years. He says the problem with DOC audits is that, in his words, nothing ever happens after the audit work is done.

“Is anybody able to control the Department of Corrections and it’s lack of management?” Krayeske said.

Gov. Ned Lamont (D-Conn) said that he’s glad auditors did their job by pointing out issues that need attention, but he admits that there’s still work to do.

“I don’t like repeat findings, I like when they make a mistake to learn from the mistake,” Lamont said.

Reports also showed improper use of corrections credit cards. Auditors reviewed 134 purchases totaling more than $44,000, and 6 purchases were made by someone other than the cardholder. This finding was also discovered in the last audit.

The DOC declined News 8’s request for an interview. However, they did provide a statement saying in part:

“As stated in the report, we are in agreement with their findings, and have begun to implement corrective actions in order to improve our internal processes.”

Watchdog for CT Department of Correction's handling of youth prisoners failed to file required reports

Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:28:11 GMT

An ombudsman paid about $147,000 in recent years by Connecticut’s Department of Correction to investigate complaints and conditions surrounding incarcerated youth has failed to file nearly two dozen reports to various state officials, a CT Insider review of public records shows.

The Youth Ombudsman, which is meant to serve as a watchdog for the state agency that incarcerates individuals 18 years old and younger, was initially mandated to provide quarterly reports on its activities to the Department of Correction, which was required to publish them.

But documents obtained through state Freedom of Information law show that Frontline Support Strategies Consulting, LLC only sent four reports to DOC since the company was hired in 2021, including none this year as of August. While the legislation creating the position required quarterly reports, meaning four per year, the requirement was later changed to monthly reports, according to contracts with the company.

The documents also show it took the Department of Correction two years to hire a youth ombudsman after the legislature ordered them to do so in the law, and provided the funding for the office.

“We are aware that Frontline Support Strategies Consulting, LLC has fallen behind in its reporting and is working to provide the missing reports,” DOC spokeswoman Ashley McCarthy said in an email.

In response to a request for comment, Frontline staff said in an email this month they plan to “resume the frequency” of quarterly reports but said there is no requirement to produce the reports.

“There has never been legislative requirements provided to our team dictating the required frequency of reporting; we decided quarterly reports internally as a good practice given the volume of new information/resident reports,” Frontline said in the statement.

The state law passed in 2019 that mandated the DOC to hire a youth ombudsman was changed in May 2022 and did away with the requirement, though the DOC’s contract with Frontline still required monthly reports.

Frontline said it is catching up on filing reports.

“We did not submit a Q4 report for 2023,” Frontline said. “We will submit that right away to the MYI (Manson Youth Institution) team. Our Q3 report for 2024 will also be following as that period is closing now; that brings us to current.”

The Youth Ombudsman is assigned to work with young individuals incarcerated at Manson Youth Institution in Chesire and York Correctional Institution in Niantic , the state’s only prison for women.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Ned Lamont did not respond to a request for comment.

State Sen. Gary Winfield, the co-chair of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said he was frustrated required reports were not submitted.

"We should have every single one of them — not just because we are paying for them, and we should be careful with how we use state money — but also because we have young folks in our system that we have a duty of care to," Winfield said. "These reports ostensibly should help us figure out whether we are meeting that duty of care ... If they don't exist that's a major problem for me."

Ken Krayeske , a New Haven attorney and DOC critic who has won numerous lawsuits against the correction department and landed other high-figure settlements with the agency, said not adhering to requirements is typical for the agency.

“This is part and parcel of a pattern of the DOC refusing to follow legislative mandates,” said Krayeske, who was passed over to be ombudsman for the adult prison population and said he was aware of the requirement for the youth ombudsman to file reports.

“The lack of reports for Manson is emblematic of the atmosphere by the Lamont administration,” Krayeske said. “I’ve seen a couple of [youth ombudsman] reports in which they just talk about TVs and whatnot. There is so much that needs to be done.”

The DOC ombudsman role to oversee the adult prison population recently made news because the position sat unfilled for years due to a disagreement between the governor and lawmakers over who should fill the post. Krayeski was recommended for the job by the state’s Correction Advisory Committee, but he was rejected by Lamont.

Soon after CT Insider highlighted the standoff, Lamont appointed DeVaughn L. Ward of New London to serve as Connecticut’s interim correction ombudsman.

An ombudsman meets with incarcerated individuals, investigates complaints and generally ensures conditions at a correctional facility are fair and concerns from those incarcerated are being heard.

For decades, the state had a one-person ombudsman for adult prisoners, but the role was eliminated in 2011 over budget deficits. Lawmakers restored the adult ombudsman position, expanded the office and added a new ombudsman team for incarcerated youth individuals.

A new position

In 2019, in the wake of a state watchdog report detailing that children at a state prison were spending weeks in solitary confinement – one getting just 30 minutes outside of their windowless cell each day – and not getting any education or rehabilitative treatment, state legislators immediately acted and passed legislation that ordered the Department of Correction to hire an ombudsman to investigate the complaints and the conditions at Connecticut’s youth prison and work to resolve them.

The legislature provided the money for the agency to create a two-person ombudsman office and required that office or contractor to report quarterly on their work.

A few months later, the U.S. Department of Justice notified Lamont the federal agency has opened a civil rights investigation into how the state was treating imprisoned children.

The correction department did not, however, get around to hiring an ombudsman until July 2021 – two years after the law required them to do so and despite the conditions being flagged and the ongoing federal probe.

“Due to logistical challenges, there are no ombudsman services in place,” the corrections agency eventually reported to the legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

The state and the contracted ombudsman agreed to come up with key performance measures for the watchdog to track and report monthly to DOC.

But the ombudsman – Frontline Support Strategies Consulting – tuned in just one report during their first year.

The DOC later extended and amended Frontline’s contract and changed the reporting requirement from quarterly to monthly, records show.

The legislature also changed the law and broadened it to require an ombudsman office be created for everyone the state incarcerates and housed in an independent state agency.

That position also went unfilled for years.

Last month – years after the DOC had a chance to improve after flags were raised – the U.S. Justice Department reached a settlement with DOC that mandates drastic changes in how the agency treats the youth it incarcerates.

The Legislature in 2019 authorized a new Youth Ombudsman position, directing the DOC hire an organization to work with “persons 18 years of age or younger in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction.” But for various reasons, an ombudsman was not hired until June of 2021.

The duties for the Youth Ombudsman, as outlined in legislation authorizing the position, included reviewing “decisions, actions, omissions, policies, procedures, rules or regulations of the Department of Correction.” Other duties involved “investigating such complaints, rendering a decision on the merits of each complaint and communicating the decision to the complainant, recommending to the commissioner a resolution of any complaint found to have merit, recommending policy revisions to the department, and publishing a quarterly report of all ombudsman services activities.”

The law notes the ombudsman “shall annually report the name of such person to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the Department of Correction.”

In its statement, Frontline said it is working to file the reports.

“We are not withholding reports; we did not submit a Q4 report for calendar year 2023; additionally, we submitted one report from January to June 2024,” the company said. “We have a July-September 2024 that will be submitted to DOC at the close of this quarter, and resume with the quarterly cycle.”

Frontline added: “Since the initiation of the contract (in July 2021), we have done in person visits twice weekly without exception to MYI to meet with the [youth] population in the ombudsman capacity; we remained in person even throughout the pandemic with visitor restrictions in place.”

Krayeske said the mandate to produce reports outlining the ombudsman’s activities is clearly established in the legislation.

“Why can’t the DOC do anything by the book?” Krayeske said. “At what point does Gov. Lamont say all this lack of compliance really indicates ‘I should do something,’ but we have seen zero appetite to do anything.”

Barbara Fair, a founder of Stop Solitary in Ct, which recently won a ban against extreme solitary confinement, said the ombudsman reports are important.

“The reports show they are doing their job,” Fair said. “But no one seems to enforce anything. We have a governor who does not care what goes on with incarcerated people. They are falling down on the job so they can be slack as to what their jobs are. DOC has not had oversight in many years.”

According to the most recent contract signed by Frontline, the company cannot be paid more than $71,000 annually. The contract ends in June 2025.

Records posted online by the state Comptroller's office indicate Frontline, which was hired as the youth ombudsman in mid-2021, was paid by the DOC $26,126 for fiscal year 2022, which ran from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. The company was paid $53,066 for fiscal 2023; $55,066 for during the 2024 fiscal year and $12,782 for 2025 fiscal year.

Visits and holiday meals

Documents obtained by CT Insider included four Frontline reports submitted to DOC. The reports show the ombudsman’s interaction with various incarcerated youth and provide insights into issues facing the youthful prison population.

The documents include a December 2021 report to DOC; a November to December 2022 report; and two 2023 reports covering the time between January and April and July and September of that year. A brief report to the Legislature explained the Youth Ombudsman was hired in June 2021.

A review of the 2023 reports found a variety of information about the young, incarcerated individuals, including a new basketball tournament at Manson, which the ombudsman said resulted in “no behavioral incidents” among the participants. The reports also discuss serious issues, such as one incarcerated youth whose eye was badly damaged in a fight.

The ombudsman added the young, incarcerated individuals were meeting with parents, and some of those meetings had been observed by the ombudsman team; the team visited a suicidal youth; witnessed staff engaging in “conflict resolution” with those incarcerated; and incarcerated individuals reported physical force was only being used when “absolutely unavoidable.”

The report noted no formal grievances were filed during the period and advised DOC to provide more “fatherhood programs.”

A report covering November and December 2022 at Manson noted in-person visits had been reinstated, incarcerated youth still lacked access to a library and holiday meals were well received. The report does not indicate why visits had been restricted.

The report said some laundry machines were not working, non-functioning televisions were an issue in various areas, some incarcerated youth complained about a lack of mail service and rising commissary prices and others expressed “frustration” over not being able to contact lawyers.

The records obtained by CT Insider also included a few email exchanges between the ombudsman team and DOC staff, including a brief discussion of reports filed by Frontline.

For example, on October 19, 2023, Frontline informed a DOC staffer that a report had been transmitted to the agency.

“You will find the quarterly report attached, if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know,” the email noted. “Thank you, Frontline Team.”

In another email, a DOC staff member on May 19, 2023 told other official a recent report by Frontline was “very positive.”

Winfield, the state senator, said the reports were not what he was expecting given the Department of Justice investigation and settlement and investigation by the state's child advocate about the conditions at Manson.

"Having that kind of knowledge going into (reading these reports) and seeing this kind of almost 'You're doing a good job' makes me feel like it didn't really go deep enough," he said during an interview.

He said he has read a lot of reports over the years hearing from those incarcerated and reading about their conditions, and after reading the youth ombudsman reports he doesn't have confidence he has a better understanding of how children are being treated at Manson.

"I generally walk away from these type of things having some real pictures of what is being observed in there. I don't know that I do that with these reports," he said.

Those reports — and an effective ombudsman — Winfield said could have potentially prevented the need for the state to settle with the U.S. Justice Department over inhumane conditions.

"Having an independent ombudsman in place has a lot to do with the type of behavior you would see in a system," Winfield said, noting if one is in place "I think I'd be less likely to do things I'm not supposed to do."

Firm Won't Be Sanctioned For 'Fabricated' Baby Death Suit

Fri, 20 Sep 2024 14:21:54 GMT

A Connecticut law firm will not be sanctioned for filing an allegedly fabricated product liability lawsuit against Target Corp . and the maker of an infant lounger over the death of a baby, whose death the companies say was actually caused by homicide, a Connecticut federal judge decided the same day that he trimmed most of the complaint's claims.

A series of paperless orders that hit the docket Wednesday in Connecticut federal court do not provide any reasoning for denying sanctions against Stratford-based BBB Attorneys LLC , the parents of Angelise Rodriguez and the administrator of her estate without prejudice, or fully detail the rationale for eliminating 11 of 13 claims the plaintiffs brought in November 2022.

According to sanctions motions from Target and The Boppy Co . LLC, the 4-month-old died by homicide in 2019 from blunt force trauma, and her father was later charged with manslaughter. Boppy said it contacted BBB Attorneys, threatening to seek sanctions directly, but the firm refused to withdraw the complaint, which claimed the company's lounger probably suffocated Rodriguez.

The plaintiffs challenged the autopsy report and said the manslaughter charge was eventually withdrawn. Th father, Angel Miguel Rodriguez, entered an Alford plea to a reduced charge of risk of injury to a minor, according to the plaintiffs' objections to sanctions.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Boppy announced a recall of the loungers at issue in September 2021 after receiving eight reports of infants suffocating from 2015 to 2020. A June 2023 update from the agency and the company said that "two additional infants died in Newborn Loungers that were part of an unsafe sleep environment" shortly after the recall.

In its January 2023 dismissal motion, Boppy argued that Connecticut's Product Liability Act precludes the plaintiffs' claims for loss of consortium, recklessness and unfair trade practices, and Target made a similar argument in its own motion.

The companies also noted that loss of filial consortium — or a parent's loss of a relationship with their child — is not a recognized cause of action in Connecticut. On Thursday, Target argued against allowing filial consortium claims in a separate case before the Connecticut Supreme Court, which revolves around a serious injury to a baby who was in a Graco car seat that the parents said caught fire when placed next to a stove.

Kenneth J. Krayeske of BBB Attorneys told Law360 Friday that during a Wednesday hearing, U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny allowed the product liability claims against Target and Boppy to proceed. His rulings also memorialized a decision that he made during a Feb. 22 status conference to remove the infant product supplier Artsana USA Inc., which does business as Chicco, as a defendant for lack of jurisdiction. Three of the claims that Krayeske said were dismissed were filed against Chicco.

On the topic of sanctions, he said the judge left open the possibility of revisiting the defendants' motions once discovery is complete, but "credited" the argument that the plaintiffs' counsel owes "zealous advocacy" to their clients.

"I represent the estate of a 4-month-old baby that was found suffocated on a bed next to a product that was recalled, and that is known to have suffocated at least 10 other babies," Krayeske said. "I am duty-bound to find out what happened to her."

Counsel for Target and Boppy did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Peter C. Bowman and Kenneth J. Krayeske of BBB Attorneys LLC.

Boppy is represented by Timothy R. Scannell, Kevin R. Kratzer and Walter J. Klimczak III of Boyle Shaughnessy Law PC , and Brian E. Cohen, Shari Lynn Klevens and Timothy J. Storino of Dentons .

Target is represented by Renée W. Dwyer of Conway Stoughton LLC .

The case is Scricca et al. v. Boppy Co. LLC et al., case number 3:22-cv-01497 , in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut .

Expert Witness Vindicated Prejudgement Remedy Upheld

Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:46:19 GMT

"I am thrilled the Connecticut Appellate Court upheld the use of a sociologist as an expert witness who could provide an academic basis for speech being interpreted as racist," Ken Krayeske of BBB Attorneys , the plaintiff's attorney, said.

A prejudgment remedy of $295,000 survived an appeal and challenges to the expert testimony of a sociologist in a case alleging intentional and malicious harassment based on the plaintiff's race.

In the underlying lawsuit, the plaintiff Keren Prescott alleged Yuliya Gilshteyn, who is white, spat in her face at a protest.

The trial court granted the application for a prejudgment remedy , and found probable cause the "defendant committed a civil assault and battery against the plaintiff, that the defendant intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the plaintiff, that the defendant maliciously and intentionally harassed and intimidated the plaintiff by spitting in the plaintiff's face and that her actions in doing so were motivated, in whole or in substantial part, by the plaintiff's race," the Appellate Court's decision said.

Prescott, a Black woman, attended a protest at the Connecticut State Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, and shouted slogans such as "Black lives matter" and "racism is a public health crisis," the decision said.

The defendant attended the protest to show support for the "medical freedom movement," the decision said. According to court records, the defendant moved toward Prescott and asked the plaintiff about "Black on Black crime," which an expert witness identified as a "racist trope," the decision said. Moments later, the defendant allegedly spat in Prescott's face.

Counsel for the defendant, Norm Pattis of Pattis & Paz, did not respond to a request for comment.

On appeal, the defendant claimed the prejudgment remedy of $75,000, which was trebled, for emotional distress was improper because there was "little to no evidence" of the claim besides "self-serving statements [as] an activist."

However, the Appellate Court said case law allows plaintiffs to recover damages in personal injury cases "even when such pain and suffering is evidenced exclusively by the plaintiff's subjective complaints."

"[T]he court specifically found credible the plaintiff's testimony that she experienced severe emotional distress as a result of being spat upon by the defendant and due to increased concerns that she may contract COVID-19 and that contracting COVID-19 might worsen her [multiple sclerosis]," the decision said. "The court also found credible her testimony that she felt 'humiliation over being spat upon in public, and that the bodily violation of being spat upon reawakened the trauma of her past sexual assault.'"

The defendant also contested the admission of the expert testimony of Charles A. Gallagher, a professor of sociology and criminal justice at LaSalle University, the decision said. "Gallagher, as a nonscientific expert, did not have any special skill or knowledge directly applicable to the matter in issue, which concerned the defendant's intent at the time she spat on the plaintiff," the defendant claimed.

While the defendant argued Gallagher's testimony was "nothing but attenuated general knowledge of the discussion of race in the United States" and described his expertise as "watercooler variety," the Appellate Court concluded that Gallagher's "testimony and academic credentials belie such a claim."

The Appellate Court agreed that Gallagher could not determine the defendant's mindset during the ordeal, but his expertise "provided context for how the defendant's statements could be construed."

Ken Krayeske of BBB Attorneys represented the plaintiff.

"I am thrilled the Connecticut Appellate Court upheld the use of a sociologist as an expert witness who could provide an academic basis for speech being interpreted as racist," Krayeske said.

Further, the defendant argued that this case involves freedom of speech and, therefore, prejudgment remedy should have been reached by a jury due to "the importance of freedom of speech and expression," the decision said.

In response, the plaintiff contended that the words people use are relevant evidence to find intent and motive, but this case is not a freedom-of-speech case, and "spit is not speech," the decision said.

The Appellate Court agreed with the plaintiff, and concluded that the defendant's arguments were "unavailing."

Krayeske said if the defendant tries to bring this to the high court, "it would be a very difficult appeal."

"This was a unanimous decision shared by all three on the panel," Krayeske said. "It's not every day that you get this kind of resounding ruling in your favor."

While Krayeske said this was a great win for his client, he hopes there are not future cases like this.

"The idea of a case like this is to show people that when racism is overt and damaging, all racism is damaging," Krayeske said. "But overt expressions of hatred must be extraordinarily expensive."

Lawsuit Alleges Man Was Racially Targeted During West Hartford Police Use of Deadly Force Incident

Wed, 14 Aug 2024 14:30:40 GMT

WEST HARTFORD, Conn. — The family of a man shot to death during an interaction with West Hartford police is calling for justice and accountability.

It was just over a year ago when deadly force was used on Mike Alexander-Garcia. Now, his family is suing.

A 66-page complaint was filed with the court Aug. 7. The lawsuit alleges that Alexander-Garcia was wrongfully killed after he fled from police in a stolen vehicle.

Body camera video of the August 2023 incident shows West Hartford Police Officer Andrew Teeter confronting the fleeing stolen vehicle suspect as he tried to carjack another vehicle in a bay of the Town Fair Tire service center on New Britain Avenue.

As the incident unfolded, Teeter threw his K9 into the vehicle and then fired five shots.

“That’s why we are here today because the town of West Hartford shot a man over a $10,000 car,” remarked Atty. Ken Krayeske of BBB Attorneys.

Alexander-Garcia’s mother and sister stood silently alongside their attorneys during a news conference held outside West Hartford Town Hall Wednesday. They are suing Teeter, the police department and the town. In the complaint they claim Teeter “had no justification” to fire his gun and “had no intention of apprehending” Alexander-Garcia. They call his use of deadly force “inevitable.”

“We have the simple words of Mike Alexander-Garcia when he stated numerous times, 'Please don’t kill me,'” recalled Atty. Peter Bowman of BBB Attorneys as he read aloud from an easel that depicted those words.

The lawsuit claims Alexander-Garcia’s killing was in violation of Connecticut’s Police Accountability Act, the State Constitution and department policy.

“That in and of itself is the biggest violation here today,” said Bowman.

It also alleges that the town has problems with racial profiling, citing a report by the Racial Profiling Prohibition Project which found, “WHPD conducted minority traffic stops at a 10.5% higher rate than the statewide average.”

“Our lawsuit alleges that he was targeted as a result of his race, and that is supported by the historical data as well as where this incident occurred,” explained Bowman.

They allege a civil rights violation and want the U.S. Department of Justice to get involved.

“West Hartford has to do better, and we think that federal intervention is the way to do it,” remarked Krayeske.

In a statement, West Hartford Corporation Counsel Dallas Dodge said the town is "committed to police accountability and transparency. A lawsuit at this stage contains unproven allegations."

The attorneys couldn’t answer why Alexander-Garcia was in a stolen vehicle or why he decided to flee. They also couldn’t say if he’d still be alive today if not for those choices.

“I don’t think we can answer that question without more information about what happened that day that the town of West Hartford has refused to provide,” said Dodge.

The town of West Hartford told FOX61 that Teeter currently remains on desk duty.

The CT Office of the Inspector General is investigating the use of force and hasn’t ruled yet whether it was justified or not.

More Resources:

Family Calls for U.S. Department of Justice Investigation in West Hartford Killing

Wed, 14 Aug 2024 12:50:41 GMT

Unarmed Man Shot Five Times by Police Dies After Over-Aggressive and Unnecessary Use of Force As He Begged for His Life

WEST HARTFORD, CT, August 14, 2024 - The family of a man killed by a West Hartford police officer has filed a lawsuit against the officer and town seeking justice and accountability. The family is also calling for a U.S. Justice Department, Civil Rights Division investigation into the shooting based on historical evidence of racial profiling by the West Hartford Police Department since at least 2017.

The 15-count complaint details how the actions of the town, the West Hartford Police Department and West Hartford Police Officer Andrew Teeter led to the death of Mike Alexander-Garcia, Jr. on August 8, 2023. The lawsuit alleges Officer Teeter was negligent, reckless and intentional in his killing of Alexander-Garcia.

The complaint also brings claims under the Police Accountability Act, alleging the killing of Alexander-Garcia violated his constitutional rights. The Act, passed in 2020 in response to the death of George Floyd and others, holds police officers, police departments and municipalities responsible for their violations of civil rights, including the improper use of deadly force. This is one of the first cases brought under this act.

Alexander-Garcia, 34, was killed by Officer Teeter on August 8, 2023. He was shot five times at point-blank range by Teeter , who first lifted a police dog into a car Alexander-Garcia was in and then jumped into the car himself. Alexander-Garcia was shot as the dog attacked and bit him multiple times. Alexander-Garcia, who was unarmed and did not threaten violence, repeatedly begged, "Please don't kill me ... Please officer" before the fatal shots. The killing occurred after a stationary license plate scanner alerted police to a suspected stolen vehicle in which Alexander-Garcia was a passenger. He was shot after a brief foot pursuit which ended as he entered a second vehicle - the vehicle in which the shooting took place.

Repeatedly shouting, “I’m going to f***ing shoot you,” the officer gave no other direction or command. And, as Alexander-Garcia begged for his life, the officer fired two rounds into him as shown in the body camera footage. Then - with the vehicle stopped and his pistol still pressed directly against Alexander-Garcia – the officer fired three more bullets into his body. Police body cam footage does not appear to show Alexander-Garcia threatening the police officer. It also does not appear to show the officer attempting to de-escalate the situation or use any non-lethal force such as pepper spray.

“Mike was surrendering to the police when he was shot,” said Attorney Peter Bowman, of BBB Attorneys, who is representing Alexander-Garcia’s family. “He pleaded for his life to the officer and yet Officer Teeter still chose to shoot him five times.”

After the shooting, police took seven minutes to render aid to Alexander-Garcia, according to video evidence. He was eventually pronounced dead at the scene.

An investigation into the shooting by the Connecticut Inspector General’s Office remains pending. The work status of the officer and the results of the internal affairs investigation is unknown.

The family’s lawsuit claims that by entering the vehicle, the officer himself created the jeopardy that escalated to deadly force. The lawsuit continues to state the officer failed to follow basic departmental police procedures related to foot pursuit, moving vehicles, use of a canine and deadly force. It alleges the shooting was unjustified and excessive: “[Teeter] had no intention of apprehending Mike Alexander Garcia,” the suit says.

"This is a classic case of officer-created jeopardy. The actions of the officer that day were not justified. He should not have entered the car, and he absolutely should not have shot and killed Mike. Mike begged the police officer not to shoot him. Yet the officer chose violence and death over de-escalation," said Bowman. "The police did not follow basic procedure, causing Mike’s unnecessary death. The family lost a son and a brother."

"The video shows Mike pleading for his life. We can only imagine his fear as the dog attacked and the officer screamed about shooting him," said Bowman. "Nothing he did that day deserved a death sentence. Mike’s family - and our entire community - deserve answers and accountability.”

Jacqueline Garcia, Mike’s mother, says she knows she can never bring her son back, but wants accountability and change. She said her son was likely scared - especially as the police dog was attacking him - and would never have hurt the police officer.

“To the officer who took my son’s life, you can’t comprehend the pain and loss you have inflicted on our family,” Jacqueline said. “I hope that through this tragedy there can be reflection and change so that no other family endures the heartache we are experiencing. My wish is for justice and accountability.”

Ken Krayeske, a partner for BBB Attorneys who is working on the matter, said that based on details of the shooting and the past record of the West Hartford Police Department, the family has requested a U.S. Justice Department civil rights investigation of the shooting and overall practices of the department. According to the State of Connecticut official Racial Profiling Prohibition Project, the West Hartford Police Department has consistently ranked above average in its use of racial profiling according to policing data. For example, the latest data available shows 46 percent of all resident traffic stops conducted by West Hartford police in 2021 were against minorities - while just 21 percent of the town’s residents were minorities.

“We are calling on the Department of Justice to investigate policing in the Town of West Hartford. We have made an official request with the U.S. Attorney General and the Civil Right Division of the Department of Justice,” Krayeske said. “The Town has been aware of the police department’s use of racial profiling since at least 2017 and has failed to fix it - leading to a high rate of unfair, improper and potentially violent situations.”

"While the family seeks justice in the form of criminal charges, that remains under investigation with the OIG,” Krayeske said. “What we can do now is investigate these racial enforcement disparities and make our community safer. The DOJ should take this matter seriously."

Hundreds of Plaintiffs Deploy Litigation Strategy in Zantac Suits

Mon, 29 Jul 2024 13:50:01 GMT

"Juries can be fickle, and if you have to try nine cases nine times, you may get nine different results," Peter Bowman , a personal injury lawyer for BBB Attorneys, said.

The plaintiffs in nine cases against Big Pharma companies for alleged Zantac injuries are using a strategy to keep their nearly identical claims in Connecticut state court unconsolidated for trial by naming less than 100 people in each case.

The 853 plaintiffs scored a victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when the court held in a 2-1 decision that the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate was for pretrial purposes only, and they did not intend to seek a joint trial.

The defendants are Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, GlaxoSmithKline Holdings Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi U.S. Services.

The plaintiffs claimed that the pharmaceutical companies failed to warn consumers that Zantac, an over-the-counter heartburn medication, causes cancer.

On appeal from a decision from the U.S. District Court in Connecticut to remand the nine actions to state court, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs made a "misstep" in their attempt to "evade the various triggers of federal subject-matter jurisdiction."

The defendants also claimed that the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate automatically led to a joint trial under the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA.

Peter Bowman, a personal injury lawyer for BBB Attorneys, said the defendants might want a consolidated case to obtain a consistent ruling.

"Juries can be fickle, and if you have to try nine cases nine times, you may get nine different results," Bowman said.

The Second Circuit agreed with the District Court in its holding that under CAFA the court must consider the plaintiffs' intent, and based on the plaintiffs' "great lengths" to avoid a consolidated federal trial, it was clear that the plaintiffs only wanted pretrial consolidation.

"We are very happy with the well-reasoned opinion by the Second Circuit and look forward to advancing the cases of our clients, who are all suffering from cancer as a result of their use of Zantac," John A. Bruegger of Parafinczuk Wolf, counsel for the plaintiffs, said.

However, the Second Circuit decision was not unanimous.

In Judge Amalya Kearse's dissent, she opined that there was "nothing in the state-court record showing that plaintiffs stated, prior to or in making their motion for consolidation, that they sought consolidation of these cases only for pretrial proceedings."

Counsel for the defendants—Patrick M. Fahey and Jaime Ashley Welsh of Shipman & Goodwin; Lindsey Cohan of Dechert; Lauran R. Greenspoon and Robert R. Simpson of Shook, Hardy & Bacon; James O. Craven and James I. Glasser of Wiggin and Dana; Anand Agneshwar and Daniel S. Pariser of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer; and Jospeh W. Martini of Spears, Manning & Martini—did not respond to a request for comment.

Bowman said, historically, that judges are meant to say "what the law is, not what it should be," but this is a unique appeal.

"It's rare to have a midcase appeal," Bowman said. "When that happens, the court appropriately can look at the docket to see what the actions of the plaintiffs and the defendants were, and so when it sees issues related to that within the pleadings to avoid federal jurisdiction, I think it's fair to acknowledge that and to use that intent in cases like this."

Further, Bowman said this is not the first case to be consolidated solely for pretrial purposes in Connecticut, and the Second Circuit recognized that option.

Announcing Winners and Finalists in the New England Legal Awards 2024

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 13:59:01 GMT

We're excited to announce the winners and finalists in our second annual New England Legal Awards, recognizing attorneys and firms from Connecticut and across New England.

We're excited to announce the winners and finalists in our second annual New England Legal Awards, recognizing attorneys and firms from Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

What we've ended up with is one of our strongest-ever groups of finalists in our annual excellence awards, which will be celebrated at a gala in September. Winners in categories such as Attorney of the Year and Litigation Departments of the Year, General Litigation will be recognized at an awards dinner on Thursday, Sept. 26 at Fairmont Copley Plaza in Boston. For more information, please visit the New England Legal Awards event site. For tickets and sponsorships, please contact Andre Sutton at asutton@alm.com .

Many of the names below are familiar to all, but there will likely be some who are new to you from neighboring New England states. Connecticut's legal community remains proudly represented in this year's contest, which reaches out to a broader audience and will be showcased on a bigger stage.

Thanks to everyone who nominated candidates for this year's awards, and please join in celebrating the following winners and finalists:

Attorney of the Year Finalists

Benjamin H. Diessel, Wiggin and Dana
Chinh H. Pham, Greenberg Traurig
Lisa Pirozzolo, WilmerHale

Lifetime Achievement Winners

Daniel Halston, WilmerHale
John Rattigan, DLA Piper
Stanley A. Twardy, Jr., Day Pitney

Litigation Departments of the Year: General Litigation Finalists

Day Pitney
Latham & Watkins
Motley Rice
Silver Golub & Teitell
Wiggin and Dana
WilmerHale

Litigation Departments of the Year: Specialty Category, Antitrust Winner

Wiggin and Dana

Litigation Departments of the Year: Specialty Category, Appellate Finalists

Ford Harrison
Wiggin and Dana

Litigation Departments of the Year: Specialty Category, Business Litigation Winner

Latham & Watkins

Litigation Departments of the Year: Specialty Category, Commercial Litigation Winner

Latham & Watkins

Litigation Departments of the Year: Specialty Category, Family Law Winner

Pullman & Comley

Litigation Departments of the Year: Specialty Category, Intellectual Property Finalists

Mintz
WilmerHale

Litigation Departments of the Year: Other Specialty Category Winner, M&A and Private Equity Litigation

Brown Rudnick

Litigation Departments of the Year: Specialty Category, Products Liability/Mass Torts Winner

Motley Rice

Litigation Departments of the Year: Specialty Category, White Collar/Corporate Compliance Winner

Nixon Peabody

Distinguished Leader Winners

Bill Baldiga, Brown Rudnick
William D. Belanger, Troutman Pepper
Tanya Bovée, Jackson Lewis
Hans Brigham, Latham & Watkins
Steven C. Browne, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
James A. Budinetz, McCarter & English
Brian Flood, The Flood Law Firm
Daniel Halston, WilmerHale
Ryan Henry, Cramer & Anderson
Garrett Lee, Morgan & Morgan
Lou Lieto, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Alan Rome, Rome Clifford Katz & Koerner
Michael D. Schweitzer, Goldberg Segalla

Banking and Finance Attorney of the Year Finalists

David Ephraim, Morrison Foerster
Brian Rich, Barclay Damon

Intellectual Property Attorney of the Year Finalists

Sarah Chapin Columbia, McDermott Will & Emery
Sarah Gagan, Latham & Watkins
Tony Gangemi, Barclay Damon
Melissa Hunter-Ensor, Greenberg Traurig
Matthew Karlyn, Morrison Foerster
Jane Remillard, Nelson Mullins
Jackie Scheib, Robinson & Cole

Merger and Acquisition Attorney of the Year Finalists

Gregory Daddario, Greenberg Traurig
Laura Knoll, Skadden
Armand A. Della Monica, Kirkland & Ellis

Outside Counsel Management Finalists

Ben Hayden and Christina Ciaramella, Cengage Group
Resolute Management, Inc.

Real Estate Firm of the Year Winner

DLA Piper

Partner of the Year Finalists

Wayne Dennison, Brown Rudnick
Farah Gerdes, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
David Tolley, Latham & Watkins
Barbara Trachtenberg, DLA Piper

Regional Managing Partner of the Year Finalists

Leander Dolphin, Shipman & Goodwin
David J. Dykeman and Terence P. McCourt, Greenberg Traurig
Christopher McKenna, Foley & Lardner
Richard L. Street, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
Dr. Maria Laccotripe Zacharakis, McCarter & English

Social Impact Finalists

Amanda Eckhoff, Robinson & Cole
Claudia Quintero, Central West Justice Center
Elizabeth Ritvo, Brown Rudnick
Charles Sanders, Latham & Watkins
Steven J. Stafstrom, Pullman & Comley
Troutman Pepper's Education Law Center Partnership

Unsung Hero Winners

Max Gladstone and Mayisha Khan, Troutman Pepper
Ashley J. Hornstein, Motley Rice
Jarod Taylor, Axinn

In-House Impact Winner

Tony Naquan Woolard, Genus PLC

Legal Innovators & Disrupters Finalists

Ashley Picker Dubin, Day Pitney
Anusia Gillespie, SkillBurst Interactive
Troutman Pepper's "Athena"

Best Mentors Finalists

Anne Littlefield, Shipman & Goodwin
Alisha Nanda, Skadden
Margaret "Peggy" Strange, Jackson Lewis
Lisa Tittemore, Sunstein

New Leaders in the Law Winners

Megan E. Boorsma, BBB Attorneys
Richard C. Buturla, Berchem Moses
Rebecca Clegg, Axinn
Blake Driscolli, Trantolo & Trantolo
Stesha A. Emmanuel, McCarter & English
Ellen Sutliffe Hain, Cohen and Wolf
Kenyon Hall, Sidley Austin
Monica Kwok, Goodwin
Paul Lewis, DLA Piper
Erica Nolan, Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff
K. Alexandra O'Neill, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Amy Pimentel, McDermott Will & Emery
Sheldon R. Poole, Shook, Hardy & Bacon
Leah Segal, Goulston & Storrs
Chadé Severin, Skadden
Jeremy Shaw, Vicente
Rebecca Sivitz, Weil, Gotshal & Manges
Matthias Sportini, FLB Law
Gwendolyn Tawresey, Troutman Pepper
Joshua Taylor, Wiggin and Dana

The Link Between Solid Discovery and Victory in Dram Shop Lawsuits

Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:03:14 GMT

Isabel Del Vecchio of Suisman Shapiro, who has settled many dram shop cases, said it is hard for defendants to prevail on summary judgment because determining if someone were "visibly intoxicated" at the time of sale is a question of fact.

A lawsuit seeking damages from a bar for allegedly serving alcohol to a drunk driver survived the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

What happens next though will be difficult to predict, because such litigation is highly fact-specific.

But some plaintiff attorneys say they've found tried-and-true methods to prevail.

A key factor: discovery.

'For the Jury to Decide'

The lawsuit was brought under Connecticut General Statutes §30-102 , more commonly known as the Dram Shop Act. It allows a plaintiff to seek damages from a bar if alcohol is sold to a visibly intoxicated person who then harms someone.

Peter Bowman of BBB Attorneys , a personal injury attorney experienced in dram shop litigation, said the function of the law is to balance public safety and a bar's incentive to sells drinks and earn profits.

"In every case, it's a question for the jury to decide whether someone was acting appropriately," he said.

Tracy E. Salvatore, the plaintiff, alleged the defendants, Frank Cuomo and 124 Elm Street Inc., served alcohol to Cecil Clemons while he was visibly intoxicated. Clemons allegedly hit the plaintiff's car head-on while driving under the influence of alcohol.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Alphonse J. Balzano of Balzano & Tropiano, did not respond to a request for comment.

The court disagreed when the defendants argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact relating to whether Clemons was sold alcohol while drunk.

Justin R. Bengston and Cara D. Joyce of Morrison Mahoney, counsel for Cuomo and 124 Elm Street, did not respond to a request for comment.

Potential Obstacles

Isabel Del Vecchio of Suisman Shapiro is not involved in the litigation, but has settled several dram shop cases. She said it is hard for defendants to prevail on summary judgment because determining if someone was "visibly intoxicated" at the time of sale is a question of fact.

However, on the plaintiff's side, dram shop cases must be filed early and expeditiously because notice to the defendants within 120 days of the incident is required, and the statute of limitation expires one year after the occurrence, Del Vecchio said.

Sometimes, the police report does not include where the alleged perpetrator was served alcohol, and Del Vecchio said that "it's important to jump on the criminal side of things and talk to the victim's advocate, reach out to the defendant's attorney to try to get a statement from the person."

Del Vecchio said juries want to see video evidence that the person was clearly drunk, but bars don't store security footage long term, so the sooner the video is request after the incident, the more likely it is available.

"Similar to most cases, discovery is super important," Del Vecchio said. "Deposing witnesses, deposing wait staff, finding out policies and procedures for the bar … intoxication level of a person and body cam footage."

Bowman said it can be challenging to depose bar staff in an industry where staff changes happen frequently.

Since these types of cases are fact-specific, Del Vecchio said without proper discovery, it turns into a "he said, she said situation, and that's really not what you want."

Wait staff usually must receive training for intervention procedures certification to serve alcohol, which lays out for staff the signs that someone is drunk to help prevent drunk driving and further intoxication. During depositions with staff, Del Vecchio said asking questions using the TIPS certification book is a handy tool to get them to concede someone was showing the signs of intoxication.

Some attorneys have called for amendments to the Dram Shop Act, such as an increase from the damages cap of $250,000 and a way to combat too much alcohol from being served to people who do not outwardly appear to be intoxicated.

"Often people who are injured by drunk drivers or persons who are involved in bar fights and otherwise have serious injuries, in this day and age, are worth much more than $250,000," Bowman said. "Raising the amount would keep up with inflation."

Serving alcohol responsibly might seem like an inconvenience for bars, but Del Vecchio said "it's a good thing to try to keep our community safe."

Changes at BBB Attorneys: Personal Injury Litigators Added, 2 Trial Lawyers Promoted to Partner

Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:07:25 GMT

Christopher Kenworthy and Zachary Reiland are joining the group after more than 30 years of private practice experience between them, and BBB also promoted two of its own, Kenneth Krayeske and Megan Boorsma , to partner in recognizing its "commitment to the firm and its clients."

One of Connecticut's leading law firms, BBB Attorneys, is continuing its growth by adding two lawyers to its personal injury litigation team and promoting two of its most successful trial lawyers to partner, the firm announced in a news release in late May.

The firm, which specializes in injury litigation covering car crashes, airplane disasters and other mass torts, announced that Christopher Kenworthy and Zachary Reiland are joining the group after more than 30 years of private practice experience between them.

Kenworthy has won or settled more than 300 cases throughout his career. As a law clerk for an insurance company while in law school, BBB Attorneys believes he will bring a significant advantage on personal injury cases. Reiland's nearly 15 years of experience in criminal defense and postconviction work fits into the "client-first" focus of the firm, the release said.

"In this legal environment, a true trial attorney is a rare talent. Chris and Zach have elite courtroom experience that will help our clients in their quest for justice," BBB Attorneys' Chief Innovation Partner Peter Bowman said. "Their experience, energy and willingness to advocate for clients is second to none."

BBB Attorneys also promoted two of its own, Kenneth Krayeske and Megan Boorsma, to partner in recognizing their "commitment to the firm and its clients."

Krayeske, with extensive experience in federal civil rights cases, has obtained multiple seven-figure verdicts from the Connecticut Department of Corrections for failure to provide proper medical care to prisoners. He was lead counsel in the class action Barfield v. Quiros, a settlement which resulted in the Department of Corrections paying $40 million to test more than 20,000 people for Hepatitis C, curing more than 1,400 of them.

Boorsma has secured millions of dollars for injured clients and has worked both prosecution and defense on a variety of claims. She obtained a $5 million prejudgment remedy in a child pornography and sexual privacy case, along with a $1 million verdict in a wrongful-death overdose case.

Krayeske was appointed to administrator of the state's only municipal public campaign finance system, the New Haven Democracy Fund, in 2012. He then ran his own firm for nearly 10 years before joining BBB Attorneys in 2023.

Boorsma was admitted into practice in 2017 before starting at a general litigation firm in New Haven, and joined BBB Attorneys in 2022.

"Megan and Ken are tireless advocates for their clients and have done so much for the people they help and our firm," Bowman said. "It is an honor to recognize their contribution and practice areas and it is an honor to have them as partners in our firm."

BBB Attorneys has offices located throughout Connecticut, including in West Hartford, Stratford and New Haven, but also has a national reach. Its founders are Bowman and Peter G. Billings.

BBB Attorneys Expands with New Hires and Partner Promotions

Wed, 29 May 2024 12:56:14 GMT

WEST HARTFORD, CT, May 29, 2024 - BBB Attorneys today announced an important next step in the growth of the firm, adding two highly experienced personal injury litigation attorneys and promoting two of its most successful trial lawyers to partner.

BBB Attorneys, with offices in West Hartford and Stratford, is one of Connecticut’s leading law firms and has built a reputation based on client service and tireless advocacy on behalf of its clients. A key part of its success strategy is building and growing a highly experienced team of lawyers.

Christopher Kenworthy and Zachary Reiland are joining BBB Attorneys, bringing more than 30 years private-practice experience to the firm. Kenworthy has managed hundreds of successful injury cases, recovering millions for his clients. Reiland has nearly 15 years experience in the areas of injury, civil and criminal litigation.

“In this legal environment, a true trial attorney is a rare talent. Chris and Zach have elite courtroom experience that will help our clients in their quest for justice. Their experience, energy and willingness to advocate for clients is second to none," said Peter Bowman , Chief Innovation Partner at BBB Attorneys.

With Kenworthy and Reiland, BBB Attorneys adds to a robust team of skilled and successful trial lawyers with decades of litigation experience in the most serious personal injury cases.

BBB is also promoting two personal injury litigation attorneys to the position of partner in recognition of their commitment to the firm and its clients:

Kenneth Krayeske , a legend in the area of civil rights litigation, has a strong record - including obtaining multiple seven-figure settlements against the Connecticut Department of Corrections for failing to provide prisoners with proper medical care. He is a respected member of the Federal Bar Association and has been repeatedly recognized for his work. He now focuses on catastrophic personal injury matters, as well as important civil rights work.
Megan Boorsma has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts for injured clients throughout her career. She has aggressively advocated for clients and their families at BBB Attorneys since 2022, including obtaining a $5,000,000 dollar prejudgment remedy in a child pornography and sexual privacy case and a million dollar verdict in a difficult overdose claim.

"Megan and Ken are tireless advocates for their clients and have done so much for the people they help and our firm,” Bowman said. “It is an honor to recognize their contribution and practice areas and it is an honor to have them as partners in our firm.”

About BBB Attorneys, LLC

BBB Attorneys is a law firm advocating for injured persons throughout the country. Established in 2012, BBB is a client-focused practice providing strategic, comprehensive counsel and legal support to achieve the best possible outcome for each case. The firm’s team of attorneys offer clients both tremendous experience and unique perspectives with an innovative and modern approach to legal services. Services encompass every aspect of personal injury litigation from car crashes, airplane disasters, mass torts and other plaintiff's litigation. The team is based in Connecticut, but has national reach. For more information, visit https://www.bbbattorneys.com/ .

Rising Star Attorney Secures Major Settlements in 2 Months

Wed, 15 May 2024 14:11:14 GMT

"Slip-and-fall cases are difficult to try on both ends," Megan Boorsma said. "A case like this with a fracture is high risk. There's a big risk of us getting a defense verdict in a slip-and-fall case, but with an injury like this, there's definitely a risk that they would get a verdict. People always say like you never leave a mediation happy, neither side."

Newly named partner Morgan Boorsma at BBB Attorneys settled two cases back to back, securing nearly half a million dollars.

In one case—a motor vehicle collision lawsuit involving a T-bone accident—plaintiff Robert Pogorzelski alleged Xhensila Cekolli did not come to a full stop at an intersection and hit his car. The impact also allegedly caused him to strike another person's vehicle.

Pogorzelski's head, left arm, shoulder and chest were injured, court records showed.

Boorsma said that liability wasn't an issue in the case, but previous health problems led to a dispute between the parties on the value of the case.

Defense attorney Sergio C. Deganis of Oullette, Deganis, Gallagher & Grippe, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the special defenses claimed Pogorzelski's own negligence caused the injuries.

In addition, because Hydri Cekolli was the owner of the car Xhensila Cekolli was driving, the insurance company denied coverage because she was excluded from the policy, Boorsma said.

"We didn't settle immediately at mediation because they wanted us to get a second denial of coverage about the underlying tortfeasors insurance," Boorsma said.

"The other tortfeasor ended up paying nothing towards the accident. … It was a straight denial."

While Boorsma said they weren't able to exhaust the full policy limits of $250,000, Pogorzelski was able to secure a $218,750 settlement.

In the second case Boorsma settled, the plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on concrete stairs at a driving school, and injured her back. The plaintiff fractured her spine, but did not have to have surgery, Boorsma said.

The defense argued in its special defense that the plaintiff should have been more careful when using the stairs. Boorsma said the plaintiff's prior similar injuries was also a challenge.

One of the defendants' lawyer, Gregory J. Vetter of Goldstein and Peck, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The other defendant's attorney, David A. Sylvestre of The Law Offices of David Sylvestre, declined to comment.

During mediation, Boorsma said both sides were very far apart.

"Slip-and-fall cases are difficult to try on both ends," Boorsma said. "A case like this with a fracture is high risk. There's a big … risk of us getting a defense verdict in a slip-and-fall case, but with an injury like this, there's definitely a risk that they would get a verdict. People always say like you never leave a mediation happy, neither side."

Who's Liable? Trial Lawyers' Key Role After Baltimore Bridge Collapse

Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:23:56 GMT

"The sooner you bring a piece of litigation, the sooner you find out what the facts are," attorney Richard Silver said about the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.

Questions remain unanswered after a container ship hit a major Baltimore bridge, causing it to collapse early Tuesday morning.

And key among the issues for plaintiffs lawyers: Who might be held liable for the tragedy at the Francis Scott Key Bridge?

It's a complicated question.

Timing Is Key

Florida personal injury attorney Scott Schlesinger, founder of Schlesinger Law Offices, said determining liability will depend on an array of facts—which largely remain unknown in the hours following the incident.

"Who was driving the boat? Was there some sort of mechanical failure? Was it going too fast? Was it an inexperienced captain? Was there a weather issue? Were there abutments in the water to protect the main support structure?" Schlesinger asked. "If I was investigating the case, because somebody that was on the bridge had a family member that called me, these are all the things I'd be doing at the scene."

And lawyers might cast a wide net.

For instance, Schlesinger weighed a general lack of care for bridges across the United States, which lag on maintenance, repairs and updates amid funding shortages for such infrastructural projects.

Another attorney suggested a similar strategy.

Richard Silver, senior partner at Connecticut firm Silver Golub & Teitell, was lead counsel for plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking relief after multiple deaths from the Mianus River Bridge collapse in Greenwich in the 1980s.

Silver said the investigation showed a defect in the Mianus River Bridge, but the firm that designed the bridge was not held liable because the structure had met design standards when it was built in the 1950s.

So plaintiffs counsel asked the state Supreme Court to declare that the seven-year statute of limitations for civil negligence lawsuits against architects was unconstitutional.

Their request failed, as the high court was not convinced.

In the end, the plaintiffs and the state settled the case at around $6.3 million for four of the victims of the collapse.

The attorney predicts plaintiffs counsel might face similar hurdles regarding the collapse of the Baltimore bridge, which was built in 1972—especially if the structure's design becomes a contributing factor of the collapse.

"Bridges have to be maintained, and that is traditionally an area that is sometimes neglected," Silver said. "I couldn't believe how quickly [the Baltimore] bridge collapsed. However, if it's past the statute of limitations, you can't bring a case against the designer. But we need an engineer to say why that bridge collapsed."

Only time will tell if the bridge fully collapsed because of a structure or maintenance issue, Silver said.

"The sooner you bring a piece of litigation, the sooner you find out what the facts are," he said.

'They've All Got to Be Sweating Tacks': Attorneys Discuss Liability Over FIU Bridge Collapse Early Involvement

Connecticut personal injury lawyer Peter Bowman of BBB Attorneys said a common defense is to point fingers elsewhere to avoid liability.

For example, a defendant might argue: "It wasn't our crew, the ship failed; It wasn't the ship, it was the maintenance; It wasn't the maintenance, it was the old ship," Bowman said. "They will pass the buck around."

Bowman said it's important as an attorney to get involved in investigating the circumstances early.

"There will be many entities in multilayered investigation that we have done in cases, and that can be overwhelming at first, but it's something that you want to make you understand exactly what' happened," he said.

Bowman said the focus right now should be on finding the survivors and recovering those who may have died in the accident. "Our hearts go out to the victims," he said.

Details Emerging

The owner of the ship, Synergy Group, that crashed into the bridge said in a statement that the vessel hit one of the structure's supporting pillars at around 1:30 a.m. The ship had two pilots to aid with safe navigation in the harbor, the Synergy Group said in its statement. There were no reports of any injuries to the crew on the ship, the company said.

Meanwhile, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said the cargo ship lost power before the crash, and the mayday call gave local officials a chance to keep traffic off the bridge before it collapsed. A construction crew was also fixing potholes on the bridge, but the bridge collapsed right before officers could alert the workers, according to AP News.

Theories about why the crash occurred are swirling, but the Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office shut down claims it was a terrorist attack.

"There is no evidence at this time to suggest that today's collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore has any ties to terrorism. My office will continue to coordinate with our federal, state, and local partners to provide any support necessary," U.S. Attorney Barron said. "I am praying for the families and friends of the victims and everyone affected by this tragic event."

Early news reports noted rescuers had pulled two people from the water, and rescuers are still searching for six construction workers.

Bowman, the Connecticut personal injury lawyer, suggested attorneys would play a major role in the coming months, and could help ensure stronger protocols.

"We want to make sure that our world is as safe as possible," he said. "We believe trial attorneys are some of the most powerful forces in safety and to limit injuries going forward."

District Court Certifies Question to State High Court: Can Parents Bring Loss of Consortium Claims for a Child?

Tue, 23 Jan 2024 15:26:14 GMT

"The absence of authoritative state decisions on this issue, and the split at the trial court level, counsel in favor of certification at this point," U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea of the District of Connecticut wrote about parents' claims for loss of filial consortium.

A case in which an infant was severely burned while buckled in her car seat located near a stove has brought a broader question into the courtroom: Does Connecticut law recognize plaintiff parents' loss of consortium or companionship of a child?

Judicial Vacancies Are Shrinking, But Courts Are Still Slow

Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:32:01 GMT

"It seems like all the presiding judges are under pressure to move business along, but don't have all the resources they necessarily need to do it," Angelo Ziotas said. "We certainly would hope the governor's office would fill the remaining vacancies and do so with some lawyers with trial experience so that we can have people on the court [hit] the ground running."

Twenty Superior Court judges were sworn in on Tuesday, but Gov. Ned Lamont does not plan on filling the 23 additional vacancies until the next legislative session in 2024.

From Doorbell Cameras to 3D: Attorneys Explore New Technology in the Courtroom

Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:34:54 GMT

"I believe technology is crucial, and it's the future," BBB filmmaker Ryan Gates said. "If you're not doing it, you're doing your client a disservice."

In the courtroom, personal injury attorneys are using technology more than ever to convey their clients' story to the jury. Attorneys say the age of social media and interest in true-crime shows have led juries not only to resonate more with the use of video and other technology, but to expect it.

With Lawsuit Filed, Mother Hopes for Change After Daughter's Death in 2021 Car Crash

Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:36:10 GMT

The attorney filed a lawsuit against State Police and Department of Transportation for $200 million in damages.

SOUTHINGTON, Conn — A mother is speaking out after her daughter was killed in a crash on Interstate-84 last year. Kristine Kulmacz spoke exclusively with FOX61 on Wednesday, the day after the family's attorney filed a lawsuit against the Connecticut State Police (CSP) and Department of Transportation (DOT) for $200 million in damages.

Kulmacz's daughter, 25-year-old Jayan Bryan, was killed in the crash along I-84 East between Cheshire and Southington, and her best friend in the passenger's seat, 23-year-old D’Yanna Wallace, was seriously injured.

The attorney’s office claims the two women were left on the side of the road for about nine hours before help came.

The crash is now the center of a lawsuit filed with the Office of the Claims Commissioner Tuesday, accusing CSP and CT DOT of wrongful death, negligence and recklessness, among other items.

While Bryan's mother knows nothing can bring back her daughter, she’s hoping to save another family from experiencing the pain she’s gone through and is still searching for answers about her daughter's death one year after the crash.

On February 20, 2021, Kulmacz remembers getting a call from State Police.

"I just kept asking, 'where’s my daughter, where’s my daughter,' because by now, I knew something was wrong," she told FOX61. “He just said that she’s been in a horrible accident and she didn’t make it.”

FOX61 obtained body camera video from the law firm representing the two women. According to court documents, a trooper responded to a call around 2 a.m. from a driver who hit a large piece of debris from a crashed car. The trooper can be seen in the bodycam video moving the piece from the road, but the lawsuit claims the trooper didn’t investigate where it came from.

The trooper allegedly returned to the area five hours later to find Wallace, seriously injured, but still alive, and calling for help in the passenger seat. But Bryan, the driver, had passed away by this time, according to court documents.

First responders had to cut the two out of the mangled vehicle.

The complaints filed each seek $100 million in damages each for Wallace and Bryan.

"We need to provide proper funding as well as additional training to state troopers so they can do their job and so that is what’s really concerning us," Peter C. Bowman with BBB Attorneys said. "There was a time period, and we still don’t know exactly how long because we’re waiting for the police report and the medical examiner's report, in which there is the likelihood that she may have been able to have been saved."

We reached out to Connecticut state police for comment on the matter, but the agency said they could not comment on pending litigation.

Thursday would have been Bryan's 26th birthday. Her other best friend and roommate, Maxine Smith, remembers the vibrant young woman.

"We loved her. She was the life of the party," Smith said. "Her and my daughter were really close, like that was her second mom."

"We lost her three days after her 25th birthday," Kulmacz said. "Unfortunately, she paid the ultimate price and we’re never going to get her back but if we can do something so that a family goes through 10 percent of what we did."

As for Wallace, the passenger who survived, FOX61 is told by her attorney that she is going through rehab and has undergone about 15 surgeries since the crash.

The lawsuit is still in the early stages of the process but FOX61 will continue to keep you updated.

Solemn Recollections: Attorneys, Staffers and Court Officials Remember Sept. 11, 2001

Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:39:53 GMT

Attorneys from Connecticut, New York and New Jersey share their stories as the world marks 20 years since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks

Those of us who remember the events of Sept. 11, 2001 know immediate reactions to the terrorist attacks of that day included a realization that America and the world would never be the same. And while those words may sound like a cliché, they were prophetic. The most violent foreign attack to have ever occurred on American soil has defined and shaped us, for better or worse, for the past two decades.

As we mark the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the memories are vividly horrific, yet in many ways hopeful. Attorneys to whom we reached out this week have shared a range of stories, each of which are unforgettable in their own way. No matter how close or far away we were from Ground Zero, the Pentagon or Shanksville, Pennsylvania, we felt a spirit of unity that day that held strong in the ensuing days and weeks. Those of us who were too young to remember Pearl Harbor now had a stark connection with our elders, intertwining millennials with the Greatest Generation, and perhaps we learned a bit more about what it means to be an American.

To the attorneys, staffers and court officials who responded to our call for recollections, we say thank you. And to those who are still mourning the losses we experienced on Sept. 11, 2001, we say please continue to share your stories with your fellow Americans, and keep the memories of your loved ones alive.

The below submissions were edited lightly for style and clarity.

Darren Cunningham Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut

On the morning of September 11, 2001 Darren Cunningham, now a Connecticut assistant attorney general, was clerking for federal appellate judge Roger Miner at the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan, right near the World Trade Center. "The judge and his staff were preparing for oral arguments in his chambers on the 22nd floor," Cunningham recalled. "Shortly after the first tower was hit, Judge Miner called us into his chambers. Terrorists had previously tried to attack the WTC "from below" and were now likely attacking it "from the air," the judge said. "As we were discussing the situation and what had possibly occurred, we saw, to our horror, the second tower struck by a second plane." After being evacuated from the courthouse, "we noticed, incredibly, a cab pulling up to the entrance of the courthouse." The judge and staff traveled north on Sixth Avenue with fire trucks and ambulances coming in the opposite direction. "As we reached our first stop, it was then that the first tower came down. Even though we had seen the devastation of the towers first hand, we were all quite surprised (and horrified) that the attack had caused one of the towers to fall. I know I will never forget what I saw that day and how much it changed the world."

Harriet F. Klein Retired Superior Court Judge, Essex County, New Jersey

"I had just arrived at the Essex County Courthouse, on that magnificent blue-sky morning, to start what I thought would be an ordinary day's work as a judge in the Criminal Division," Judge Harriet Klein wrote. "When my sheriff's officer informed me that a "small plane" had hit the World Trade Center, I went across to Judge Michael Petrolle's chambers which faced directly east. I saw the now iconic picture of the Twin Towers and the plume of dark smoke. As I was watching, there was a sudden explosion of bright orange flame as the second plane hit. It was slowly registering in my mind that I had just seen people die by terrorism. Remarkably, Judge Petrolle exclaimed "It's Bin Laden!" Here I was, trying to process what I had seen, and he was already naming the culprit. I went back to my chambers and mercifully did not witness the towers' collapse. The next time I looked, all I saw was the awful cloud of white smoke and dust where they had stood earlier that day. I can't erase these images from my mind, and therefore I can't ever forget. To this day, I call Judge Petrolle annually on 9/11 to reinforce the bond that it created."

Paula Zirinsky Global Chief Marketing Officer, K2 Integrity, New York City

Paula Zirinsky was the director of public relations at Cadwalader 2001. She recalled that the firm's offices were located on Maiden Lane, just a couple blocks from the World Trade Center. "Exiting the subway in the Chase building, people were looking up at a fire in one tower," she said. "Meanwhile the air was filled with paper. It was one of the only times I ever saw people from Cadwalader standing outside the building in the early morning versus rushing in. We all have stories about that day – and what we tackled is, well, documents." Zirinsky was one of about a dozen people who immediately transferred to Cadwalader's midtown conference center to account for all employees. With the firm's director of marketing, she worked to track down every attorney and staffer at the firm, holding conference calls with as many as a thousand attendees. During a break at one point, Zirinsky's cell phone rang. It was a reporter from the New York Law Journal asking how everyone at the firm was doing. "I have always remembered that call," she said.

Gregg D. Adler Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, Hartford, Connecticut

Attorney Gregg Adler recalled he was in the process of jury selection for an employment case at the federal courthouse in Hartford with Judge Robert Chatigny presiding. "At some point in the morning, Judge Chatigny called all counsel to the bench. He whispered to us that he had received a report from the marshal's service that a plane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers." About a half hour later, the judge again asked counsel to approach. "This time he was more somber." Adler said attorneys were stunned by news of the terrorist attacks. "We went back to our seats and Judge Chatigny informed the room full of potential jurors what had occurred. He did so with his typical grace. All of a sudden the judge was now a minister, sharing a tragedy with his people and urging them to stay calm and hope for the best. For all of us that day, Judge Chatigny's serenity and directness in the midst of this unfolding tragedy was somehow comforting and reassuring. Adler noted his mother had been about a mile away from the towers when the first plane hit, and she heard both explosions. "She seemed to be fine except for the emotional scars, but a couple of years later she was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, almost certainly related to the debris that entered her lungs on 9/11."

Mary Che Vice President of Marketing, Connell Foley, Roseland, New Jersey

Mary Che lived only a few blocks north of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001. "I have many vivid memories of that morning," she wrote, "from the deafening sound of the first plane hitting to the sickening realization that all these lives were lost when the towers came down. Beyond these horrors, though, I witnessed total strangers helping each other and offering whatever assistance they could. The sad irony is that tragedies often bring out the best in people. I believe the legal profession became a little more compassionate after that day, and a greater understanding of the importance of work-life balance has ensued."

Judge Marina Corodemus (retired) , Managing Partner, Corodemus & Corodemus, Iselin New Jersey

Judge Marina Corodemus was serving on the bench in Middlesex, New Jersey during the September 11 attacks. "One of my law clerks came in to tell me about a plane hitting the Twin Towers. Not too much later the other law clerk came into chambers announcing a second plane. I had a large screen TV in my courtroom hooked up to an independent phone line. We streamed the news on the TV. My courtroom filled quickly. We all watched in horror as the tragic events of the day unfolded. World Trade Center, Pentagon, Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Curiously no one spoke. Just sounds of gasps, crying and people coming in and out giving updates from friends and family members. Someone actually came in to take 'attendance' to see if I was still working. I dispatched them and their inquiry quickly. I came back into chambers at the end of the day and said a prayer of thanks for our safety and eternal peace for all those who lost their lives."

Ivan Dolowich Co-Managing Partner, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, New York, NY

On Sept. 11, 2001, Ivan Dolowich was working at 40 Wall Street on "a quintessential crisp NYC morning when suddenly sirens blared and then came the unbearable sounds of falling rubble. "Evacuating my building and walking uptown amid thousands of New Yorkers, businesses handed out wet towels to cover our faces. I later learned many of my insurance industry colleagues had perished. Yet fear did not deter us from returning to downtown." The most significant change in the legal profession since 2001, Dolowich said, "is the measurable progress towards diversity and inclusion in law firms. May the memories of those who perished be a blessing to all of us."

Chris Placitella Cohen, Placitella & Roth, Red Bank, New Jersey

"In the days immediately following 911, Congress came together to establish the Federal Victims Compensation Fund in an effort to help those families divested in injury and mortality put the pieces back together," said Chris Placitella. "As the acting President of the New Jersey Association for Justice, I was privileged to witness first hand the selfless dedication of hundreds of New Jersey lawyers who participated in the largest pro bono effort in US history." Through the group Trial Lawyers Care, attorneys worked to secure sufficient compensation "so that children in the affected families would be able to have the lives their deceased fathers and mothers dreamt they should have," Placitella said, adding that, "because so many victims were from New Jersey, our bar shouldered a large share of the load working tirelessly for months and in some cases years with no expectation of compensation." Placitella also represented the group of women the New York Times nicknamed the Jersey Girls, who lobbied for victims. "They spent most of their waking hours helping others so paralyzed by loss they could not independently navigate the troubled waters of grief."

Barry S. Rothman Strongin Rothman & Abrams, New York, NY and Livingston, New Jersey

"My law partners and I had our law office in an executive suite on the 79th floor of 1 World Trade Center, from the time we started our firm less than two years before 9/11. We were proud to have such a prestigious address, and a wondrous view of midtown Manhattan from the reception area of our suite, especially after dark. We were exceedingly fortunate that none of us, or our staff, were present that morning at 8:46 a.m., but our suitemates who were there at that time all perished. My most enduring memory? The courtesies extended by other lawyers and our clients during our months-long effort to rebuild our practice and, above all else, the kindness of a now-defunct Philadelphia law firm who housed us in their NYC satellite office for five months, all expenses covered, until we recommitted to lower Manhattan in a new office location. The most significant change in the legal world? Technological advances that enable lawyers in large and small firms to maintain all business and case-related data electronically and remotely. In 2001, law firms like ours were not paperless, and our daily electronic back-up was a tape that was locked in a safe on-site to protect against fire, flood and theft, but not a building collapse."

Daniel A. Schwartz Partner, Shipman & Goodwin, Hartford, Connecticut

"On Sept. 11, my then-colleague Glenn Dowd & I had a 6 a.m. flight to Miami for a mediation the next day. My wife was nine months pregnant and I joked beforehand with her that I would just be a plane ride away if she went into labor early. Our flight landed safely at 9:15 a.m. and I remember everyone's old cellphones started ringing wildly with family members desperately trying to reach us. I already had two increasingly panicked voicemails from my wife. Glenn and I quickly got our rental car and realized pretty quickly that there would be no mediation, and no easy way home with planes grounded. By later that morning, we commandeered our rental car and starting the long drive back to Connecticut, stopping in South Carolina for the night, finally discovering a hotel with a free room. Glenn and I had a lot to talk about (and listen to) on the car ride home, and we arrived home safely late the next day. My first child was born just a few weeks later, and truly life would never be the same again."

Drew Britcher Co-founder, Britcher Leone, Glen Rock, New Jersey

As the Sept. 11 attacks unfolded, Drew Britcher was in court working on a medical malpractice case. "As we heard about the first plane, my mind jumped to the reports I had read while representing two men that had been in the underground lunchroom of the Towers when the wall blew out back in '93," he recalled. "My adversaries and I huddled in the judge's chambers listening to the reports, and when the report of the Pentagon was made, I realized that my sister-in-law at the time, a Navy captain, was serving as the head of Joint Chiefs Support Group within the Pentagon. The judge released us to take stock of whether any of those involved had lost a family member. By 2 p.m. that day we had learned that she and her husband, who worked for the Defense Department, were alive and uninjured. With great fortune none of us involved in the trial were directly harmed and the judge had us return for the next day. That morning, he took the bench and spoke these words that still make me choke up: 'Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday the greatest atrocity committed on our soil since Pearl Harbor was committed. We have taken stock of everyone involved and we have all been fortunate, but the people who committed this attack were seeking to strike at the institutions of this great country. This court is one of those institutions and we are not going to let them succeed, so this trial will proceed. Mr. Britcher, call your next witness.'"

James "Jamie" Sullivan Partner, Logan, Vance, Sullivan & Kores, Torrington and West Hartford, Connecticut

Jamie Sullivan was a partner at Howard, Kohn, Sprague & FitzGerald when the September 11 attacks took place. "I was in my law office in Hartford when my wife called me to tell me that a plane had hit the twin towers. One of my best friends who worked in the Attorney General's office at the time called me to ask me if we had a TV. I said yes, in our basement. He came over and we went down into the basement to watch the events unfold. A legal secretary was with us, and when the towers collapsed, she started crying." Sullivan recalled that, as state government employees were sent home for the day, he stayed in the office, eventually going to St. Anthony-St. Patrick Church for a noon mass, during which he remembered the priest broke down in tears. "I do not remember the rest of the day, other than hugging my wife when I got home," he said. Sullivan's wife, who was pregnant, gave birth to their son two days later. During a mass held for victims that Friday, Sullivan learned one of his friends had died in the World Trade Center. "The legal community did shine bright in the wake of 9/11 when it established a generous victims' fund," he added. "That was the legal profession at its best."

Patricia R. Beauregard Law Offices of Patricia Beauregard, Weatogue, Connecticut

"On 9/11, I was in lower Manhattan at a conference, and I remember what a beautiful fall day it was before the towers collapsed and people were running for their lives. Now we understand how vulnerable we are to outside influences and bad actors. Air travel requires multiple security restrictions. As lawyers, we cannot trust anyone without confirming the identities of clients and advisors. We password protect and encrypt. We must send confidential documents securely, and protect our computers and phones from hackers. We are always on guard, adding to the extreme anxiety of being a lawyer."

Craig Bonnist Partner, McCarter & English, Stamford, Connecticut and New York City

"On 9/11 I called my buddy, Rick Thorpe, in the South Tower after the plane hit, but he was never going to answer. The personal loss remains, and life without those we lost sadly became the new normal. In the months that followed 9/11, attorneys appeared to have returned to the profession with a renewed sense of priorities, and the profession briefly experienced a period of reason, cooperation and respect. Sadly, the period did not sustain. Ironically, as we endure a pandemic 20 years later, the profession again has re-prioritized and become more collegial, which perhaps can sustain this time. The losses we suffered on 9/11 are permanent and personal. The shift in priorities and renewed sense of collegiality and cooperation to restore the dignity to the legal profession will require a collective effort with a continued connection to the losses and lessons of 9/11."

Peter C. Bowman Partner, BBB Attorneys, West Hartford, Connecticut

I remember being in Washington, DC and seeing the American people unite in sorrow, mourning and anger. I remember seeing 5,000 people attend mass at the Basilica. I remember plaintiff's lawyers and insurance companies coming together to address victims' compensation. I do not think the legal world, or the American people are capable of uniting again in this way anymore. Truth and justice no longer seem to be the goal of our legal system. It is our responsibility as lawyers to show Americans that justice exists, truth can be found in our trial system and unity is possible.

John W. Cannavino Chairman, Litigation Group Cummings & Lockwood, Stamford, Connecticut

"I stopped at the office in Stamford on my way to court and saw the billowing smoke from the first tower from our offices. I went to the Stamford Superior Court, where I was picking a jury, and asked Judge Karazin to excuse us, so that we could make sure that our families were all safe. Thankfully, he excused us, and all of my children, including one attending Fordham Law School, were safe. I gathered two infant children from day care and took them to our home in North Stamford, which I hoped would be safer. I was far more fortunate than a close friend, who was across the Street from the World Trade Center trying a FINRA arbitration, and saw the plane hit the first tower. He was able to make his way out of New York City in a taxi, with desperate people riding on the hood of the car."

With Fewer In-Person Court Proceedings, Law Firms Get Creative in Training New Litigators

Tue, 24 Aug 2021 14:42:29 GMT

As COVID-19 has forced more trials to become remote, many attorneys—especially younger and newer ones—have had to overcome several obstacles.

The closure of Connecticut courts due to COVID-19 in early 2020 and the starting up of remote bench trials in the state during the second half of that year posed dilemmas, caused confusion and in some cases created opportunities for attorneys—especially new and young lawyers.

bbb-attorneys-v2

Seeking Justice After a Tragic Police Shooting During a Mental Health Crisis

BBB Attorneys represents the family seeking accountability after a fatal police response to a mental health crisis.

Family Files Lawsuit After Fatal Ambulance Crash in Farmington

Lawsuit claims both drivers acted negligently in fatal 2023 Farmington crash

Families Blocked from Suing State After Fatal I-84 Crash Response Delay

State denies lawsuit over trooper’s delayed response in fatal I-84 crash.

CT DOC Delayed Man’s Treatment as Cancer Worsened, Suit Claims

Bridgeport Man Sues CT Department of Correction Over Delayed Cancer Treatment

Lamont Stops Release of CT Dept. of Correction Medical Malpractice Report

Cases against the department

Alleged Illegal Restraint of Autistic Son at East Hartford School Leads to Lawsuit

Smithfield Teen Recounts Being Run Over by Haunted Hayride

Related Articles:

Connecticut Department of Corrections audit has startling findings

Watchdog for CT Department of Correction's handling of youth prisoners failed to file required reports

Visits and holiday meals

Firm Won't Be Sanctioned For 'Fabricated' Baby Death Suit

Expert Witness Vindicated Prejudgement Remedy Upheld

Lawsuit Alleges Man Was Racially Targeted During West Hartford Police Use of Deadly Force Incident

More Resources:

Family Calls for U.S. Department of Justice Investigation in West Hartford Killing

Unarmed Man Shot Five Times by Police Dies After Over-Aggressive and Unnecessary Use of Force As He Begged for His Life

Hundreds of Plaintiffs Deploy Litigation Strategy in Zantac Suits

Announcing Winners and Finalists in the New England Legal Awards 2024

The Link Between Solid Discovery and Victory in Dram Shop Lawsuits

'For the Jury to Decide'

Potential Obstacles

Changes at BBB Attorneys: Personal Injury Litigators Added, 2 Trial Lawyers Promoted to Partner

BBB Attorneys Expands with New Hires and Partner Promotions

About BBB Attorneys, LLC

Rising Star Attorney Secures Major Settlements in 2 Months

Who's Liable? Trial Lawyers' Key Role After Baltimore Bridge Collapse

Timing Is Key

'They've All Got to Be Sweating Tacks': Attorneys Discuss Liability Over FIU Bridge Collapse Early Involvement

Details Emerging

District Court Certifies Question to State High Court: Can Parents Bring Loss of Consortium Claims for a Child?

Judicial Vacancies Are Shrinking, But Courts Are Still Slow

From Doorbell Cameras to 3D: Attorneys Explore New Technology in the Courtroom

With Lawsuit Filed, Mother Hopes for Change After Daughter's Death in 2021 Car Crash

The attorney filed a lawsuit against State Police and Department of Transportation for $200 million in damages.

Solemn Recollections: Attorneys, Staffers and Court Officials Remember Sept. 11, 2001

With Fewer In-Person Court Proceedings, Law Firms Get Creative in Training New Litigators