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. ****************************************************** JOSEPH ROSENFIELD v. LEANA ROSENFIELD (AC 20229)
Mihalakos, Pellegrino and Peters, Js. Argued October 24--officially released December 12, 2000 Counsel

Glenn A. Canner, with whom was Anthony A. Piazza, for the appellant (plaintiff). Robert M. Wechsler, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

PETERS, J. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the denial of a motion to dismiss is immediately appealable if the movant argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of alleged statutory constraints on that court's decision-making authority. The movant does not dispute the general rule that, because such a denial does not preclude further proceedings at trial, the denial of a motion to dismiss ordinarily is not a final judgment and, therefore, not immediately appealable. See, e.g., Sasso v. Aleshin, 197 Conn. 87, 90, 495 A.2d 1066 (1985). The movant claims that his appeal is different because, by challenging the trial court's statutory jurisdiction, he has presented at

least a colorable jurisdictional claim concerning the court's subject matter jurisdiction to proceed any further. We disagree. Accordingly, we dismiss the movant's appeal for lack of a final judgment. The relevant underlying facts are undisputed. In 1989, the plaintiff, Joseph Rosenfield, and the defendant, Leana Rosenfield, entered into a separation agreement1 as part of the dissolution of their marriage. Article III,

Download Rosenfield v. Rosenfield.pdf

Connecticut Law