Summary
holding that General Statutes § 16-35, which provides for appeals from the decisions of the department of public utility control "in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183," incorporates the "final decision" component of § 4-183
Summary of this case from New Haven v. CT Siting CouncilOpinion
(SC 16582)
Argued March 14
Officially released April 30, 2002
Appeal from the decision by the defendant ordering the plaintiff to reduce retroactively and by 50 percent certain nonrecurring rates charged to customers who change their telephone service provider, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain, where the court, Cohn, J., granted the motion to intervene as a party defendant filed by CTC Communications Corporation; thereafter, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, Landau, Dranginis and Peters, Js., which affirmed the trial court's judgment, and the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Ralph G. Elliot, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Tatiana D. Eirmann, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion
The plaintiff, Southern New England Telephone Company, appeals, following our grant of certification to appeal, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's administrative appeal for lack of a final decision by the defendant, the department of public utility control. Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Dept of Public Utility Control, 64 Conn. App. 134, 779 A.2d 817 (2001). We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's administrative appeal?" Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 258 Conn. 922, 782 A.2d 1252 (2001).
After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.