*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

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. 

*********************************************** 
CHARLOTTE CICCARELLI v. PAUL CICCARELLI

(AC 41973)

Lavine, Elgo and Moll, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff brought this action seeking, inter alia, the partition of certain

real property that she owned as a joint tenant with the defendant. In

count one of her complaint, the plaintiff sought a partition of the property, and in count two she sought an accounting and damages. After

the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as

to the first count of the complaint only, the plaintiff filed a motion for

an order of partition by sale and the appointment of a committee.

Thereafter, the court entered a notice of judgment of partition by sale

and set a sale date, and the defendant appealed to this court, which

dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment. Subsequently, the

defendant filed another appeal to this court from the partial summary

judgment rendered by the trial court, claiming that he brought the appeal

to overturn summary judgment in order to stop the sale of the property.

Held that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant’s appeal, the defendant having failed to appeal from a final judgment; a judgment that disposes of only part of a complaint is not a final

judgment unless the partial judgment disposes of all causes of action

against a particular party or parties, and it was undisputed that the

partial summary judgment rendered by the trial court did not dispose

of all causes of action against the defendant, as the second count of

the plaintiff’s complaint remained pending and the record did not contain

a withdrawal or an unconditional abandonment of that count of the

plaintiff’s complaint.

Argued September 20—officially released November 12, 2019

Procedural History

Action for, inter alia, the partition or sale of real

property, and for other relief, brought to the Superior

Court in the judicial district of New Haven, where the

court, S. Richards, J., granted the plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment as to count one of the complaint

and rendered partial judgment for the plaintiff, from

which the defendant appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal; thereafter, the defendant appealed

to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Paul Ciccarelli, self-represented, the appellant

(defendant).

Sheila J. Hall, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The self-represented defendant, Paul

Ciccarelli, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Charlotte

Ciccarelli,1 on count one of a two count complaint. We

conclude that the defendant has not appealed from a

final judgment and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. At all relevant

times, the parties owned real property known as 17

Moulthrop Street in North Haven (property) as joint

tenants with rights of survivorship. In 2017, the plaintiff

commenced the present action against the defendant.

Her complaint contained two counts. In the first count,

the plaintiff sought a partition of the property pursuant

to General Statutes §§ 52-495 and 52-500 (a). In the

second count, the plaintiff sought an accounting and

damages pursuant to General Statutes § 52-404 (b).2 The

defendant thereafter filed an answer, in which he denied

the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. The defendant also filed a special defense, alleging that the plaintiff had improperly withdrawn funds from a financial

account jointly held by the parties.

After the pleadings were closed, the plaintiff filed a

motion for summary judgment on the first count of the

complaint, claiming that no genuine issue of material

fact existed with respect to her right to a partition of

the property. That motion was accompanied by the

plaintiff’s sworn affidavit. Although the defendant filed

an opposition to that motion, he did not submit any

documentation in support thereof. Following a hearing

on April 23, 2018, the court granted summary judgment

in favor of the plaintiff on the first count of her complaint. The official case detail contains an entry dated

April 23, 2018, which states that the court had entered

judgment ‘‘as to certain counts of the complaint for the

plaintiff—case remains pending.’’

The plaintiff then filed a motion for an order of partition by sale and the appointment of a committee. On

May 14, 2018, the court entered a notice of judgment of

partition by sale and set a sale date of October 20, 2018.

On May 29, 2018, the defendant filed an appeal to this

court challenging the propriety of the partial summary

judgment rendered by the court on April 23, 2019. In

response, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal for

lack of a final judgment, which this court granted on

June 27, 2018.

On August 10, 2018, the defendant filed another

appeal from the partial summary judgment rendered by

the trial court on April 23, 2018. On his appeal form,

the defendant states that he brought this appeal ‘‘[t]o

overturn the summary judgment in order to stop the

sale of the house.’’ In response, the plaintiff maintains

that the defendant has not appealed from a final judgment, thereby depriving this court of subject matter
jurisdiction. We agree.

‘‘The lack of a final judgment implicates the subject

matter jurisdiction of an appellate court to hear an

appeal. A determination regarding . . . subject matter

jurisdiction is a question of law . . . . The jurisdiction

of the appellate courts is restricted to appeals from

judgments that are final. General Statutes §§ 51-197a

and 52-263; Practice Book § [61-1] . . . . The policy

concerns underlying the final judgment rule are to discourage piecemeal appeals and to facilitate the speedy

and orderly disposition of cases at the trial court level.

. . . The appellate courts have a duty to dismiss, even

on [their] own initiative, any appeal that [they lack]

jurisdiction to hear.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mazurek v. Great American Ins. Co., 284 Conn.

16, 33, 930 A.2d 682 (2007); accord In re Santiago G.,

325 Conn. 221, 229, 157 A.3d 60 (2017) (lack of final

judgment constitutes jurisdictional defect that necessitates dismissal of appeal).

Our precedent further instructs that ‘‘[a] judgment

that disposes of only a part of a complaint is not a final

judgment . . . unless the partial judgment disposes of

all causes of action against a particular party or parties;

see Practice Book § 61-3; or if the trial court makes a

written determination regarding the significance of the

issues resolved by the judgment and the chief justice

or chief judge of the court having appellate jurisdiction

concurs. See Practice Book § 61-4 (a).’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tyler v. Tyler, 151 Conn. App. 98,

103, 93 A.3d 1179 (2014). It is undisputed that the partial

summary judgment that the court entered on April 23,

2018, did not dispose of all causes of action against the

defendant, as the second count seeking an accounting

pursuant to § 52-404 (b) remained pending. In addition,

the defendant has not requested a written determination

from the trial court regarding the significance of the

issues resolved by the partial summary judgment

entered against him.

As a result, the defendant could appeal from the partial summary judgment ‘‘only if the remaining causes

of action or claims for relief [were] withdrawn or unconditionally abandoned before the appeal [was] taken.’’

Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank, 328 Conn. 709,

717, 183 A.3d 1164 (2018). The record before us does

not contain a withdrawal or an unconditional abandonment of the second count of the complaint by the plaintiff. To paraphrase our Supreme Court, not only does

that second count remain unadjudicated, it also presents the possibility that the defendant could be found

liable to the plaintiff for additional damages. Id., 726.

In such instances, ‘‘it cannot be said that further proceedings could have no effect on him.’’ Id.; see also

State v. Ebenstein, 219 Conn. 384, 389–90, 593 A.2d

961 (1991) (dismissing appeal from partial summary

judgment for lack of final judgment and emphasizing
that parties will still be before trial court for final determination of ancillary claim).

We conclude that the defendant has not appealed

from a final judgment, as the second count of the plaintiff’s complaint remains pending. Accordingly, this

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant’s appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

1 The plaintiff is the defendant’s mother.

2 General Statutes § 52-404 (b) provides: ‘‘When two or more persons hold

property as joint tenants, tenants in common or coparceners, if one of them

occupies, receives, uses or takes benefit of the property in greater proportion

than the amount of his interest in the property, any other party and his

executors or administrators may bring an action for an accounting or for

use and occupation against such person and recover such sum or value as

is in excess of his proportion.’’