DocketNumber: No. CV-94-0245303
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 9573
Judges: STANLEY, J.
Filed Date: 9/21/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On January 30, 1992, General Motors Corporation ("GM") notified The Alderman Motor Company ("Alderman"), as required by §
Within the time specified by §
On September 10, 1992 GM, Valenti, and Prestige filed an appeal of the DMV decision in Superior Court. On June 15, 1993, the court (Maloney, J.) remanded the case to the DMV for a more detailed decision articulating how the statutory factors established in §
On November 20, 1993 the DMV issue an Amended Decision, giving greater consideration to the seven criteria listed in §
Currently before the court is the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.3 The defendants claim that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the DMV decision.
The defendants argue that the plaintiffs lack standing because they were not parties to the administrative hearing and because they were not aggrieved.[,]4 by the administrative CT Page 9575 decision. The defendants also argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal because the plaintiffs did not serve the appeal in a timely fashion as required by §
A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. LaCroix v. LaCroix,
Because of the unique factual scenario of this case, the three arguments of the defendants are in the alternative but to a large extent overlap as well. In this court's view, the jurisdictional issue is resolved by an examination of the express statutory language of §
"The right to appeal to the courts from the decision of an administrative agency exists only if given by statute . . . and is conditioned upon strict compliance with the provisions by which it created." (Citations omitted.) Roger v. Commission of HumanRights and Opportunities,
Despite the defendants' seemingly indisputable contention that Valenti and Prestige were not parties to the original administrative hearing, Valenti and Prestige argue to the contrary. They argue that they were parties to the original administrative action by virtue of their joining in GM's Petition CT Page 9576 for Reconsideration of the DMV decision. However, in this court's view, the fact that they plaintiffs petitioned for reconsideration of the DMV decision does not bestow party status on them.5
The determination that the plaintiffs herein were not parties to the original DMV hearing renders moot the defendants' argument that the appeal was not filed in a timely manner pursuant to §
For all of the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
STANLEY, J.