What is Legal versus what is Right

In every state, Connecticut included, it is not unlawful for a person with a valid carry permit to possess a legally obtained firearm.  However, just because you know that you are entitled to carry, does not mean that it is always a good idea to do so.  With the memory of the tragedy that befell a Colorado showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” last month not yet diminished, a Connecticut attorney’s judgment failed him last week when he brought a loaded firearm to a late night viewing of “The Dark Night Rises” in New Haven.   While Attorney Sung-Ho Hwang is correct, in a statement made to the press and reported in the Hartford Courant, that “[t]here is no posting at Criterion-Bow Tie Cinemas that states that weapons are not permitted. As far as the law is concerned, [he] ha[s] a right to carry there," Mayor John DeStefano may be equally correct that "[j]ust because something is legal, it doesn't make it right."  Attorney Hwang was charged with breach of peace and interfering with police.

Anti-Blight Action Being Taken in New Haven

The city of New Haven has made use of a 2009 municipal law allowing them to foreclose on abandoned problem properties. Known as the “Anti-Blight and Property Maintenance Ordinance” or simply the “Anti-Blight Bill” this law grants the city of New Haven the power to aggressively fine property owners, including the Housing Authority of New Haven, and place liens on those properties if the fines are unpaid and, in extreme circumstances, the power to foreclose on blighted properties. The ordinance also addresses cosmetic aspects of property ownership by prohibiting owners from leaving garbage or shopping carts on their property and requiring that they maintain basic appearances by fixing broken windows and having proper drainage for their driveways. 

Although the law was passed in 2009, the city has not taken advantage of the foreclosure option included in the bill until recently. Its first foreclosure was initiated in June 2012 after years of complaints regarding the “eyesore” of the neighborhood. The target property, 129 Clay St., has been neglected since 2003 and has since been the home to many homeless and criminal individuals according to local residents. The city has announced its intention to foreclose on the property and will put out a Request for Proposals from developers and housing agencies who would possibly develop the property into owner occupied housing.

Brown Paindiris & Scott Attorney Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Waggin' Train Chicken Jerky Pet Food Treats

Bruce Newman, of Counsel Attorney at Brown, Paindiris & Scott, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Elizabeth Mawaka against Nestle Purina, Waggin' Train, LLC, Wal-Mart, and Sam's Club following the death of Ms. Mawaka's two boston terriers after they ingested chicken jerky treats. Over a thousand complaints have been made to the FDA because of pet illnesses and deaths after ingesting this food, and currently over a dozen other affected pet owners may be joining the suit, which is currently pending in the US District Court in Connecticut. The chicken jerky treats cause neurological symptoms, liver and kidney failure and may also cause pancreatitis in dogs. Newman has requested that these dog treats be immediately recalled. The case has been accepted by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation as another action is currently pending in Chicago and it may be transferred to another Judge in the next 6 weeks.

If you, a family member, or friend has a dog affected by this contaminated food, contact Attorney Newman at 860.583.5200 or bnewman@bpslawyers.com.

Boating in Connecticut? Better Check for Barnacles

Among the dozens of new laws that became effective July 1, 2012, in the state of Connecticut, one particular law should be of special interest to boaters. Public Act 12-167 created a new violation, punishable by a fine of $100, for anyone to transport a boat or a trailer without first having inspected the boat or trailer for the “presence of vegetation and aquatic invasive species, as determined by the commissioner,” and then removed and disposed of the offending vegetation or species.  The public act also requires that any course in safe boating approved by the state include instruction on inspecting a boat or trailer for vegetation or invasive species and how to properly remove and dispose of those items.

Questions or Comments? Contact Jared Cantor.

Supreme Court Holds Health Care Law Constitutional

Yesterday marked the conclusion, not only to the Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 term, but to the heated debate regarding the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a/k/a “Obamacare”.  In deciding the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court's four liberals to uphold President Barack Obama's health plan’s individual mandate requiring citizens to carry insurance or pay a penalty.  By a 5-4 vote, the court held that the mandate was valid under Congress' constitutional authority "to lay and collect Taxes" to provide for "the general Welfare of the United States."  Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the penalty for failing to carry insurance possesses "the essential feature of any tax," producing revenue for the government.

The Court held one part of the law unconstitutional, deciding that the act’s expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program threatened states' existing funding.  The Court ruled that the federal government cannot put sanctions on states' existing Medicaid funding if the states decline to go along with the Medicaid expansion.

The four justices voting against the Constitutionality of the health care plan, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, stated in their dissent that they would have struck down the entire law, arguing that neither the government's commerce nor taxing power justified the mandate.  They opined that by reinterpreting the insurance mandate and changing the Medicaid provision, the majority engaged in “vast judicial overreaching" and decided “to save a statute Congress did not write.”

DUI License Suspension Rule Changes

As of January 1, 2012, Connecticut has instituted new penalties for individuals convicted for a first offense of Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  Under the new rules, individuals convicted for their first DUI offense will have their license suspended for 45 days, provided they install an Ignition InterlockDevice (IID) in their car for one year.  An IID is a device installed in the motor vehicle that measures the blood alcohol content of the driver and prevents the engine from starting if the blood alcohol content of the driver is more than .025 percent. 

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is applying the new suspension rules based on the date of conviction, not the date of conduct.  Therefore, anyone convicted after January 1, 2012 will have the new penalty provision applied against them, whether or not the DUI incident occurred before January 1^st.  Previously, there was a mandatory one year license suspension for first time DUI convictions.  The DMV is allowing drivers with a one year suspension under the previous penalty provisions to opt into the 45 day suspension period, provided they install an IID for one year.   

New Home Ownership Incentive Program Offers Grants to Purchase Homes in Hartford

Five Hartford corporations have begun offering grantassistance to their employees for use in purchasing single, two- or three family homes or condominiums. The grants are part of a Home Ownership IncentiveProgram created by MetroHartford as part of its LiveHartford initiative, a plan to promote city living and transform the surrounding area to benefit both the companies and employees. Modeled after similar programs developed by Yale University and MassMutual Financial Group, the Home Ownership Incentive Program allows companies to award grants to eligible employees on a first come, first serve basis to buy a home in Hartford. Although the grants will be forgiven over a five year period, if the employees quit their jobs or sell their homes before that time period has expired they will be required to pay the amount that is still outstanding.

So far five Hartford corporations have signed on including Aetna, Hartford Hospital, Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and Trinity College, but program leaders are hopeful more will follow. While each corporation currently participating has agreed to award five $10,000 grants, small and medium sized business are also encouraged to participate and may offer grants of any amount. Aetna began accepting applications in March and has already chosen one participant for a grant. The other corporations expect to begin their programs soon.