DocketNumber: No. 0122312
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12709
Judges: SULLIVAN, J.
Filed Date: 12/13/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
According to the plaintiff, a request for reconsideration dated March 12, 1994 was filed on March 17, 1994. However, the CHRO denies that it received the March 17, 1994 correspondence from the plaintiff. The only document that the CHRO asserts it received from the plaintiff was a letter of April 8, 1994, which offered additional evidence and several times referenced a "March 12, 1994 request for reconsideration." The defendant considered the April 8, 1994, correspondence to be a request for reconsideration, and denied it as untimely. Notice of the denial of reconsideration was mailed on July 11, 1994. This July 11, 1994 letter indicates that "[t]his denial of reconsideration is the Commission's final decision on your complaint." (Defendant's Exhibit C in support of the Motion to Dismiss.) The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Superior Court on August 24, 1994, within 45 days of the July 11, 1994 final decision.
CHRO now moves to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CHRO argues that the plaintiff's appeal was not filed within 45 days of the March 9, 1994 dismissal and, therefore, the appeal was not filed in accordance with the time constraints imposed by General Statutes §
"Ordinarily a challenge to the court's jurisdiction is raised by filing a motion to dismiss." Park City Hospital v.Commission on Hospitals and Health Care,
"`A statutory right to appeal may be taken advantage of only by strict compliance with the statutory CT Page 12711 provisions by which it is created.'" Chestnut Realty, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights Opportunities,
201 Conn. 350 ,356 ,514 A.2d 749 (1986); Norwich Land Co. v. Public Utilities Commission,170 Conn. 1 ,6 ,363 A.2d 1386 (1975). Such provisions are mandatory, and, if not complied with, the appeal is subject to dismissal. Basilicato v. Department of Public Utility Control,197 Conn. 320 ,322 ,497 A.2d 48 (1985); Royce v. Freedom of Information Commission,177 Conn. 584 ,587 ,418 A.2d 939 (1979).
Vernon Village, Inc. v. Carothers,
A party may appeal from the decision of a CHRO hearing officer pursuant to General Statutes §
[i]f, upon all the evidence, the presiding officer finds that the respondent has not engaged in any alleged discriminatory practice, the presiding officer shall state his findings of fact and shall issue and file with the commission and cause to be served on the respondent an order dismissing the complaint.
General Statutes §
[i]f the investigator issues a finding of no reasonable cause, the complainant may request reconsideration of such finding with the commission not later than fifteen days from the issuance of such finding. The commission shall reconsider or reject within ninety days of the issuance of such finding [of no reasonable cause].
In the present case, the denial of the request for reconsideration was mailed on July 11, 1994. As indicated above, the July 11, 1994 notice dictated that "[t]his denial of CT Page 12712 reconsideration is the commission's final decision on yourcomplaint. Denial may be appealed by filing a petition in the Connecticut Superior Court . . . within forty-five (45) days after the mailing of this letter." (Emphasis added.) ((Defendant's Exhibit C.) However, the CHRO now argues that its final decision was issued on March 9, 1994, because it allegedly never received a timely request for reconsideration. Regardless of whether the March 17, 1994, request for reconsideration was received by the CHRO, the CHRO did send what was purported to be notice of the final decision on the plaintiff's complaint on July 11, 1994. In addition, the agency entertained the allegedly untimely request for reconsideration and as CHRO itself noted in the July 11, 1994 notice its denial of that request was the final decision on the plaintiff's complaint, not the March 9, 1994 dismissal.1
The issue of whether the request for reconsideration was timely filed in accordance with General Statutes §
Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN, J.