State v. Carter
Decision Date | 05 February 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 2156,2156 |
Citation | 486 A.2d 1138,3 Conn.App. 235 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Jack CARTER. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Paul J. Bakulski, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Joseph I. Lieberman, Atty. Gen., for appellant (state).
Thomas P. Griffen, New Britain, for appellee (defendant).
Before DUPONT, C.P.J., and HULL and DALY, JJ.
On May 1, 1981, the defendant acknowledged in writing the paternity of a child, H, who had been born on March 13, 1981, and agreed to pay money for her support. On January 25, 1983, the defendant moved to open the paternity proceedings 1 pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-172(b). 2 The plaintiff has appealed 3 from the granting of the motion.
We must determine, at the threshold, whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Although this point was not raised by the parties, "this court has a duty to reject, on its own motion, any appeal in which it lacks jurisdiction." State v. Phillips, 166 Conn. 642, 644, 353 A.2d 706 (1974). The right of the plaintiff to appeal is governed by General Statutes § 51-197a(a), which provides that appeals from final judgments of the Superior Court shall be taken to the Appellate Court. Public Acts, Spec.Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 3(a).
" '[T]he granting of a motion to open a judgment is not ordinarily a final judgment within the appeal statute...." State v. Phillips, supra, 646, 353 A.2d 706. (Citations omitted.) Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 575, 87 A.2d 137 (1952). "It is clear that a judgment rendered upon a petition for a new trial is appealable." 4 State v. Asherman, 180 Conn. 141, 143, 429 A.2d 810 (1980).
The ultimate question is whether a § 46b-172(b) petition for a hearing is like a motion to open or like a § 52-270 petition for a new trial.
A review of the legislative history of the applicable statutes sheds some light on this matter. General Statutes § 46b-172(b) was amended by Public Acts 1981, No. 81-274, by inserting "unless the person seeking review of the acknowledgment petitions the court for a new trial under the provisions of section 52-270." This would appear to indicate that the General Assembly anticipated that the procedure would entail a petition for a new trial. Section 46b-172(b) was subsequently amended, however, by Public Acts 1982, No. 82-6, by deleting "new trial under the provisions of section 52-270" and inserting "the superior court for the geographical area having venue for a hearing on the issue of paternity within three years of such judgment or within three years of the effective date of this act, whichever is later."
In seeking the legislative intent for this change, the court may resort to its pertinent antecedent legislative history. Corbin v. Baldwin, 92 Conn. 99, 105, 101 A. 834 (1917). Representative Alfred J. Onorato of the 97th Assembly District remarked as follows when the bill was being considered for passage: 25 H.R.Proc., Pt. 1, 1982 Sess., pp. 211-12.
Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., supra, 138 Conn. 576-77, 87 A.2d 137.
Our Supreme Court ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grayson v. Grayson, 2614
... ... On May 28, 1981, the third day of the dissolution trial, the court, Hon. William L. Tierney, Jr., state trial referee, dissolved the thirty year marriage of the parties incorporating into the judgment an oral settlement, stipulated to by the parties, ... ...
-
State v. S & R Sanitation Services, Inc.
...166 Conn. 642, 644, 353 A.2d 706 (1974); Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 574, 87 A.2d 137 (1952); State v. Carter, 3 Conn.App. 235, 236, 486 A.2d 1138 (1985). 3 The state first filed a bill of particulars on the nine counts on January 25, 4 The defendant's motion to dismiss ......
-
Sasso v. Aleshin
...Co. v. Greenberg, 137 Conn. 277, 279, 77 A.2d 80 (1950); Padaigis v. Kane, 125 Conn. 727, 728, 4 A.2d 335 (1939); State v. Carter, 3 Conn.App. 235, 239, 486 A.2d 1138 (1985). Here, the partial judgment establishing the defendant as the father of the child remains in effect but the judgment ......
-
Bleidner v. Searles, 6802
...day in court on that issue in the first place. See Perkins v. Perkins, supra, 3 Conn.App. at 326 n. 6, 487 A.2d 1117; State v. Carter, 3 Conn.App. 235, 486 A.2d 1138 (1985). In view of the established law in this area, we conclude that there is no "absolute right to be reheard" on the issue......