Raines v. Freedom of Information Com'n
Decision Date | 24 March 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 14342,14342 |
Citation | 604 A.2d 819,221 Conn. 482 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | James RAINES v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al. |
George V. Lawler, Cromwell, for appellant (plaintiff).
Victor R. Perpetua, Com'n Counsel, with whom were Susan A. Quinn, Hartford and, on the brief, Mitchell W. Pearlman, Gen. Counsel, Catherine Wassel-Nasto, Com'n Counsel, and Ralph G. Elliot, Hartford, for appellees (named defendant et al.).
Joseph Musco, New Britain, for appellees (defendant New Britain Police Dept. et al.).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, GLASS, COVELLO and BORDEN, JJ.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's appeal of two final decisions of the named defendant, the freedom of information commission (FOIC). The trial court concluded that the appeal had been untimely served and, therefore, that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The facts essential to the disposition of this appeal are undisputed. In October and November, 1988, the Hartford Courant and the New Britain Herald filed complaints with the FOIC appealing the New Britain police department's denial of requests to disclose the records of an internal affairs investigation of the plaintiff, former New Britain police officer James Raines. 1 The FOIC consolidated the complaints and, on December 8, 1988, held a hearing. At the hearing, the plaintiff was made a party to both contested cases. The FOIC determined that the records were subject to disclosure and mailed notice of its final decision to the parties.
The plaintiff timely appealed the decision of the FOIC to the Superior Court. In ruling on the defendant Hartford Courant's motion in limine, the trial court, Freed, J., remanded the matter to the FOIC for an in camera inspection of the records in accordance with Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission, 210 Conn. 590, 556 A.2d 592 (1989), 2 and for consideration of additional evidence. Pursuant to the remand order, a hearing was held by the FOIC on June 28, 1990. The hearing officer who presided at this hearing incorporated some of the findings made by the hearing officer who had presided at the December 8, 1988 hearing. The FOIC issued a final decision ordering the New Britain police department to provide the complainants access to the records with certain portions redacted and, on September 19, 1990, mailed notice of its decision to all parties.
The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Superior Court, and served a copy of the appeal on the FOIC on November 2, 1990, forty-four days after the FOIC had mailed its decision. The FOIC moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that it had not been timely served and, therefore, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court, Stengel, J., granted the FOIC's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court and we transferred the case to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 4-183(c), 3 as revised by No. 88-317 of the 1988 Public Acts, is applicable to the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff argues that the FOIC proceeding from which he appealed commenced with the hearing that was held on June 28, 1990, and, therefore, is governed by the service of process provisions of § 4-183 as revised, which applies to proceedings commenced on or after July 1, 1989. General Statutes § 4-185. The FOIC contends that our decisions in Citizens Against Pollution Northwest, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council, 217 Conn. 143, 584 A.2d 1183 (1991), and Vernon Village, Inc. v. Carothers, 217 Conn. 130, 585 A.2d 76 (1991), compel the conclusion that the agency proceedings commenced with the filing of the complaints in 1988, prior to the effective date of the revision. 4 We agree with the FOIC.
Number 88-317 of the 1988 Public Acts (act) was a comprehensive piece of legislation that substantially revised the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq. Prior to the 1988 revisions to the UAPA, a person aggrieved by a final agency decision was required to file an appeal within forty-five days and serve copies of the appeal upon the agency and all parties of record within thirty days of the mailing of the notice of the decision. 5 Section 4-183(c), as revised by the act, changed the time period to forty-five days for both the filing of an administrative appeal and the service of the appeal upon all parties of record. In Vernon Village, Inc. v. Carothers, supra, 217 Conn. at 138, 585 A.2d 76, this court concluded that under § 4-185, 6 the application and effective date of the revisions "is tied to the date that the underlying agency proceedings commenced, and in cases where such proceedings had commenced before July 1, 1989, the effective date of the act, the act is inapplicable."
The plaintiff argues that the initial agency proceedings in this case terminated when he appealed from the first agency decision and, therefore, a new proceeding commenced with the hearing held on June 28, 1990, pursuant to the trial court's remand. Because this "proceeding" commenced after July 1, 1989, the effective date of the UAPA revisions, the plaintiff claims that his service of the appeal upon the FOIC within forty-five days of the mailing of the decision was timely. We disagree.
The agency proceedings in this case were initiated in October and November, 1988, when complaints were filed with the FOIC seeking disclosure of the records of the New Britain police department's internal affairs investigation of the plaintiff. After the plaintiff's appeal from the initial agency decision, the trial court remanded the case to the FOIC for an in camera inspection of the records pursuant to this court's decision in Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, and for consideration of additional evidence. In considering whether a trial court's remand order is an appealable final judgment, we have stated that "[a] judgment by a trial court ordering further administrative proceedings" does not terminate "a separate and distinct proceeding." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schieffelin & Co. v. Department of Liquor Control, 202 Conn. 405, 409-10, 521 A.2d 566 (1987) ( ); see also Eastern Connecticut Cable Television, Inc. v. Department of Public Utility Control, 214 Conn. 609, 614, 573 A.2d 311 (1990) ().
In the present case, the remand was ordered in a ruling on a motion in limine and, thus, the trial court made no determination of the merits of the appeal. The trial court ordered the FOIC to review evidence that had been submitted at the December 8, 1988 hearing as well as to consider any new evidence that the parties might submit. The hearing upon remand, although conducted by a different hearing officer, incorporated findings from the December 8, 1988 hearing. Moreover, no new complaints were filed and no new docket numbers were assigned by the FOIC. Finally, in the decision from which this appeal was taken, the FOIC referred to the matter that was heard on December 8, 1988, as having been "reopened," and based its findings and conclusions on its "consideration of the entire record." (Emphasis added.) We discern no persuasive reason on these facts 7 Vernon Village, Inc. v. Carothers, supra, 217 Conn. at 141, 585 A.2d 76. We conclude, therefore, that the June 28, 1990 hearing, held pursuant to the trial court's remand order, was a continuation of the original agency proceeding and not, as the plaintiff claims, a separate and distinct proceeding to which § 4-183(c) as revised would apply.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greater Bridgeport Transit Dist. v. State Bd. of Labor Relations
...administrative agencies exist only under statutory authority." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Raines v. Freedom of Information Commission, 221 Conn. 482, 489, 604 A.2d 819 (1992). "A statutory right to appeal may be taken advantage of only by strict compliance with the statutory provis......
-
Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility Control
...Inc. v. Carothers, [217 Conn. 130, 142, 585 A.2d 76 (1991) ]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Raines v. Freedom of Information Commission, 221 Conn. 482, 489-90, 604 A.2d 819 (1992). Dismissal is required in such a situation because, if the appellant lacks standing to appeal the case, ......
- Seymour v. Carcia, 14287
-
Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. Town of E. Windsor
...statutory provisions by which it is created.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Raines v. Freedom of Information Commission, 221 Conn. 482, 489, 604 A.2d 819 (1992). Moreover, the court stated, a tax appeal is a civil action. See Practice Book §§ 14–54 and 14–65 ; see a......