FRANK P. CANNATELLI v. STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
AC 39703
Appellate Court of Connecticut
November 13, 2018
Elgo, Bright and Flynn, Js.
Argued October 11
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
The plaintiff attorney appealed to the trial court from the decision of the reviewing committee of the defendant Statewide Grievance Committee directing the disciplinary counsel to file a presentment against the plaintiff for his alleged violation of certain Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court granted the defendant‘s motion to dismiss the appeal and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the trial court properly granted the defendant‘s motion to dismiss and determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal; this court has determined previously that an order of presentment is an initial step in disciplinary proceedings against an attorney and that the committee‘s decision directing that a presentment be filed in Superior Court is interlocutory in nature and not a final judgment from which an appeal to the Superior Court may be filed, the plaintiff‘s claim that he was aggrieved by the order of presentment implicated the issue of standing and had no bearing as to whether the order of presentment constituted a final judgment for purposes of appeal, and the plaintiff‘s reliance on federal case law for the proposition that federal law permits his interlocutory appeal because it arises out of a violation of his constitutional rights was unavailing, as the case law was inapposite in that it had no import on the issue of whether a party properly can take an interlocutory appeal to the Superior Court from an order of presentment.
Argued October 11—officially released November 13, 2018
Procedural History
Appeal from the decision of the defendant‘s reviewing committee directing the disciplinary counsel to file a presentment against the plaintiff, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, where the court, Miller, J., granted the defendant‘s motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Frank P. Cannatelli, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
Brian B. Staines, chief disciplinary counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Beth L. Baldwin, assistant chief disciplinary counsel, for the appellee (defendant).
PER CURIAM. The self-represented plaintiff, Frank P. Cannatelli, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his appeal from a decision of the defendant, Statewide Grievance Committee, and from the court‘s subsequent denial of his motion to reargue the judgment of dismissal. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his appeal for lack of an appealable final judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The following procedural history is relevant to this appeal.1 The statewide bar counsel filed a grievance complaint, dated July 28, 2014, against the plaintiff, an attorney, alleging that he overdrafted funds from his IOLTA account.2 After an audit and a full hearing, the reviewing committee found by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff committed unethical conduct and violated rules 1.15, 1.3, and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as Practice Book § 2-27. On November 20, 2015, the reviewing committee, pursuant to Practice Book § 2-35 (i), ordered that the plaintiff be presented to the Superior Court. On February 3, 2016, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel filed a presentment against the plaintiff. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Cannatelli, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-16-6060188-S.3
On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Superior Court from the decision of the reviewing committee that ordered presentment, claiming, among other things, violations of his constitutional rights. On February 16, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff‘s appeal on the ground that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the order of presentment is not an appealable final judgment. On March 28, 2016, the plaintiff filed an objection arguing that the court had jurisdiction, pursuant to
On June 20, 2016, the court concurrently granted the defendant‘s motion to dismiss and overruled the plaintiff‘s objection. The court, relying upon Miniter v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 122 Conn. App. 410, 998 A.2d 268, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 923, 4 A.3d 1228 (2010), and Rozbicki v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 157 Conn. App. 613, 115 A.3d 532 (2015), concluded that an “order of a presentment has been clearly found to be wholly interlocutory and it cannot properly be the basis of an appeal.” The court also concluded that the “[p]laintiff has not presented the court with any persuasive authority that [
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his appeal for lack of an appealable final judgment. We disagree.
This court‘s decisions in Miniter and Rozbicki are dispositive of the plaintiff‘s appeal to this court. In both cases, this court, in holding that an order of presentment is not a final judgment for the purposes of appeal, stated: “An order of presentment is an initial step in disciplinary proceedings against an attorney. Following the filing of a presentment complaint, a hearing on the merits is held after which the court renders judgment on the presentment complaint. See
“[The] interlocutory order is not immediately appealable under State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983), because it neither terminates a separate and distinct proceeding, nor so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them. Following an order of presentment by the committee, a presentment complaint is filed, and the matter continues in the Superior Court until judgment is rendered on the presentment complaint.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rozbicki v. Statewide Grievance Committee, supra, 157 Conn. App. 616–17; see Miniter v. Statewide Grievance Committee, supra, 122 Conn. App. 413–14.
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the Superior Court in the present case properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from the order of presentment because such an order is not a final judgment for the purposes of appeal. Although the plaintiff in his brief on appeal to this court attempts to distinguish the holdings of Miniter and Rozbicki from the present case, we are unpersuaded. First, the plaintiff argues that he has been aggrieved by the order of presentment because the publication of the notice of presentment damages his reputation. Even if we assume this to be true, it does not change our analysis. The determination as to whether the plaintiff has been aggrieved by a judgment is an issue of standing; see Arciniega v. Feliciano, 329 Conn. 293, 301, 184 A.3d 1202 (2018); which is entirely distinct from the determination as to whether a judgment is final for the purposes of appeal.4 See Ledyard v. WMS Gaming, Inc., 330 Conn. 75, 83–84, 191 A.3d 983 (2018).
Second, the plaintiff, relying upon Miller v. Washington State Bar Assn., 679 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1982), argues that
Therefore, we conclude that the Superior Court did not err by dismissing the plaintiff‘s appeal and did not abuse its discretion when it denied his subsequent motion to reargue because it properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.