Pistorio v. Metro Productions, Inc.
This text of 540 A.2d 111 (Pistorio v. Metro Productions, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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]*159them. 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
540 A.2d 111, 14 Conn. App. 157, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pistorio-v-metro-productions-inc-connappct-1988.