Pistorio v. Metro Productions, Inc.
Opinion
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to discharge a judgment lien filed as a result of an Arizona judgment pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. General Statutes § 52-605. This action is distinguishable from an action to discharge an invalid lien under General Statutes § 49-511 which entails the institution of an independent action, the denial of which would be appealable. Guilford Yacht Club Assn., Inc. v. Northeast Dredging, Inc., 192 Conn. 10, 468 A.2d 1235 (1984).
“In both criminal and civil cases, however, we have determined certain interlocutory orders and rulings of the Superior Court to be final judgments for purposes of appeal. An otherwise interlocutory order is appeal-able in two circumstances: (1) where the order or action terminates a separate and distinct proceeding, or (2) where the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect [159] them. State v. Bell, 179 Conn. 98, 99, 425 A.2d 574 (1979).” State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). The order, in this action, denying the defendant Jeanne Smith’s motion to discharge the judgment lien is interlocutory and does not appear to satisfy either prong of the Curcio test. This appeal was not from a final judgment.
The appeal is dismissed suo sponte.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
540 A.2d 111 (Pistorio v. Metro Productions, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.