186 Conn. App. 135
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Frank P. Cannatelli, an attorney, was the subject of a grievance alleging improper withdrawals from his IOLTA account; the statewide grievance reviewing committee found clear and convincing evidence of ethical violations.
- On November 20, 2015, the reviewing committee ordered that Cannatelli be presented to the Superior Court (an order of presentment).
- Chief Disciplinary Counsel filed a presentment in Superior Court on February 3, 2016; the merits hearing had not occurred by oral argument to the Appellate Court.
- Cannatelli filed an interlocutory appeal to Superior Court (Feb 1, 2016) challenging the committee’s order, including constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The Statewide Grievance Committee moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing an order of presentment is interlocutory and not appealable.
- The Superior Court granted dismissal and denied Cannatelli’s motion to reargue; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding the order of presentment is not a final, appealable judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order of presentment is an appealable final judgment | Cannatelli: the order injures his reputation and raises constitutional claims, so the appeal is proper | Statewide Grievance Committee: order of presentment is interlocutory, not final, so Superior Court lacks jurisdiction | The order of presentment is interlocutory and not a final judgment; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether standing/aggrievement affects final-judgment analysis | Cannatelli: he is aggrieved by publication of presentment notice | Committee: standing is distinct from final-judgment issue | Court: standing (aggrievement) is separate and does not make the order final |
| Whether § 1983 allows interlocutory state-court appeal of presentment order | Cannatelli: Miller v. Washington State Bar Assn. permits constitutional challenge via § 1983, justifying appeal | Committee: Miller does not permit interlocutory appeal to state Superior Court from a presentment order | Court: Miller inapposite; federal precedent does not change state-law final-judgment rule |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying reargument | Cannatelli: renewed constitutional and final-judgment arguments | Committee: no error—the jurisdictional ruling stands | Court: no abuse of discretion; denial proper given lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Miniter v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 122 Conn. App. 410 (App. Ct. 2010) (order of presentment is interlocutory and not appealable)
- Rozbicki v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 157 Conn. App. 613 (App. Ct. 2015) (reaffirming that committee’s direction to file a presentment is not a final judgment)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (Conn. 1983) (standard for interlocutory appeal—must terminate a separate and distinct proceeding or conclude rights)
- Miller v. Washington State Bar Assn., 679 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1982) (federal court may hear § 1983 challenge to bar discipline where no state-review right exists; held inapposite here)
- Arciniega v. Feliciano, 329 Conn. 293 (Conn. 2018) (standing/aggrievement is distinct from final-judgment analysis)
- Ledyard v. WMS Gaming, Inc., 330 Conn. 75 (Conn. 2018) (distinguishing standing from final-judgment issues)