Bouchard v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles

── Bouchard v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 14, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Bouchard v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles LISETTE BOUCHARD v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES (AC 48061) Cradle, C. J., and Elgo and Westbrook, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed from the Superior Court’s judgment dismissing her administrative appeal from the defendant’s decision to suspend her motor vehicle operator’s license. She claimed that the court improperly rejected her claim that a Department of Motor Vehicles’ hearing officer improperly admitted into evidence at the administrative hearing an A-44 form because it was not transmitted to the department within three business days of the incident, as required by statute ((Rev. to 2023) § 14-227b (c)). Held: This court concluded that the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal was not improper on the alternative ground that the plaintiff’s evidentiary claim regarding the transmittal requirement of § 14-227b (c) was unpre- served, as the factual question of whether the arresting officer complied with the transmittal requirement of § 14-227b (c) was neither presented to nor decided by the hearing officer, and, even if the claim had been preserved, the record was inadequate to review the merits of the plaintiff’s claim as the hearing officer never made any findings with respect to that factual issue. Argued December 10, 2025—officially released April 14, 2026 Procedural History Appeal from the decision by the defendant suspend- ing the plaintiff’s license to operate a motor vehicle, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London and transferred to the judicial district of New Britain, where the case was tried to the court, Hon. Henry S. Cohn, judge trial referee; judgment dismiss- ing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Drzislav Coric, with whom was Brandon H. Marley, for the appellant (plaintiff). Brian Tetreault, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney gen- eral, for the appellee (defendant).  Bouchard v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles Opinion ELGO, J. The plaintiff, Lisette Bouchard, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, dismissing her administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant to suspend her motor vehicle operator’s license. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly rejected her claim that the he