Berka v. City of Middletown, 181 Conn. App. 159

Plaintiff George Berka appealed municipal health orders issued by the City of Middletown to the Connecticut Department of Public Health (the department); the department issued a final decision adverse to Berka.
Berka filed an administrative appeal in Superior Court naming only the City of Middletown as defendant; the state marshal’s return shows service only on the city.
The city moved to dismiss, arguing Berka failed to name and serve the department; Berka sought to cite in the department after the motion was filed.
The trial court granted the city’s motion and dismissed the appeal, reasoning it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Berka failed to name the department as a party.
On appeal, the main question was whether dismissal was proper based on failure to name the department, and whether lack of service on the agency affected subject matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failing to name the agency (department) in the citation deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction	Berka argued the department should have informed him it needed to be named; his failure to name it should not deprive jurisdiction	City argued prior precedent requires naming the agency and that omission deprives the court of jurisdiction	Court: Failure to name alone is an "arguable defect" and no longer automatically jurisdictional under modern UAPA jurisprudence (Tolly) — dismissal for that reason was incorrect
Whether failing to serve the agency within statutory time deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction	Berka effectively conceded he did not serve the department and sought to add it later	City argued no timely service on the agency deprives court of jurisdiction under § 4-183	Court: Proper dismissal — complete failure to serve the agency within the statutory period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction (affirmed dismissal)
Whether dismissal violated due process because agency did not notify Berka he needed to be named/served	Berka contended lack of notice from department denied him due process	City maintained procedural requirements govern and were not satisfied	Court declined to reach merits of due process claim (inadequately briefed) after affirming dismissal on service ground

Tolly v. Department of Human Resources, 621 A.2d 719 (Conn. 1993) (untimely or no service on agency deprives court of jurisdiction; arguable process defects are not automatically jurisdictional)
Nanavati v. Department of Health Services, 506 A.2d 152 (Conn. App. 1986) (earlier rule finding failure to name proper agency deprived jurisdiction)
Donis v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, 542 A.2d 726 (Conn. 1988) (prior cases treating misnaming as jurisdictional defect)
Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 734 A.2d 551 (Conn. 1999) (statutory standards for dismissal where defective service causes prejudice; harmonizing § 4-183 subsections)
Geremia v. Geremia, 125 A.3d 549 (Conn. App. 2015) (appellate court may affirm correct result even if trial court relied on wrong reasoning)