Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

NICHOLAS PERRICONE v. MADELEINE PERRICONE (SC 17683)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Zarella, Js. Argued January 15--officially released June 23, 2009

Anne C. Dranginis and Proloy K. Das, with whom, on the brief, was Shannon C. Kief, for the appellant (defendant). Daniel J. Krisch, with whom were Wesley W. Horton, Jean L. Welty, and, on the brief, Kimberly A. Knox, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

ROGERS, C. J. This appeal arises from a postdissolution proceeding to enforce a confidentiality agreement between the defendant, Madeleine Perricone, and the plaintiff, Nicholas Perricone. The defendant appeals1 from the order of the trial court enforcing the confidentiality agreement and restraining her from disseminating any information pertaining to her divorce from the plaintiff or any derogatory or defamatory information about the parties. The defendant claims that: (1) the parties' separation agreement was fully integrated and, therefore, it nullified the confidentiality agreement; (2) even if the confidentiality agreement was not nullified, the trial court's order constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on her freedom of speech in violation of the first amendment to the United States constitution;2 (3) even if the order does not violate the first amendment, it violates article first,

Download 292CR78.pdf

Connecticut Law