Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Constr. v. Council

• Decision Date: 25 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 19107.,19107.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CITIZENS AGAINST OVERHEAD POWER LINE CONSTRUCTION et al. v. CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL.

311 Conn. 259

86 A.3d 463

CITIZENS AGAINST OVERHEAD POWER LINE CONSTRUCTION et al.

v.CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL.

No. 19107.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 19, 2014.

Decided March 25, 2014.

Matthew C. McGrath, for the appellants (named plaintiff et al.).

Robert L. Marconi, assistant attorney general, with whom were Clare E. Kindall, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, George Jepsen, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).

Anthony M. Fitzgerald, with whom, on the brief, was Kurtis Z. Piantek, New Haven, for the appellee (intervening defendant Connecticut Light and Power Company).

Victoria P. Hackett, staff attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Elin Swanson Katz, consumer counsel, for the appellee (intervening defendant Office of Consumer Counsel).

ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH and McDONALD, Js.

PER CURIAM.

This case raises the question of what constitutes a final decision, for purposes of an appeal pursuant to the Uniform AdministrativeProcedure Act, General Statutes § 4–166 et seq. (act), in a matter in which a party files a motion for reconsideration of an administrative agency's decision and the agency grants that motion and, thereafter, issues a timely second decision in response. The plaintiffs, Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Construction (association) and Richard Legare,¹ appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court concluding that, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the act, the second decision is the sole “final decision” from which an aggrieved party may file an appeal. Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Construction v. Connecticut Siting Council, 139 Conn.App. 565, 572, 57 A.3d 765 (2012). The plaintiffs claim that, at least in cases in which the appealing party is not aggrieved by and, therefore, is uninterested in the portion of the agency decision that is the subject of the motion for reconsideration, the initial agency decision also is a final decision from which an appeal may be taken. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The plaintiffs appealed to the trial court from a decision of the defendant, the Connecticut Siting Council (siting council), that had approved a proposed project of the intervening defendant Connecticut Light and Power Company (power company) ² while the power company's motion for reconsideration of the decision, with regard to the denial of a second project, was still pending. Thereafter, the siting council granted the motion for reconsideration and approved the second project. The power company then filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal, claiming, inter alia, that it was not taken from a final decision of the siting council and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on that ground but subsequently dismissed the appeal for lack of aggrievement. The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of dismissal, and a majority of the Appellate Court agreed with the defendants' renewed claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not appealed from a final decision of the siting council. ³Id., at 571–72, 57 A.3d 765. Consequently, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal. Id., at 577, 57 A.3d 765.

Thereafter, this court granted certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly determine that, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 4–181a and 4–183 ... the plaintiffs failed to timely appeal from a final decision of the [siting council] and that their appeal must be dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction?” ⁴Citizens Against Overhead Power Line Construction v. Connecticut Siting Council, 308 Conn. 906, 61 A.3d 1098 (2013). “Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties [persuade] us that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed on the certified issue. The Appellate Court properly resolved that issue in its [t...