Case Name: Amr A. Wasfi v. Board of Veterinary Registration & Examination et al.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1988-02-22
Citations: 13 Conn. App. 817
Docket Number: 5722
Parties: Amr A. Wasfi v. Board of Veterinary Registration & Examination et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 803–804

Head Matter:
Amr A. Wasfi v. Board of Veterinary Registration & Examination et al.
(5722)
Spallone, Daly and Norcott, Js.
Argued January 21 —
decision released February 22, 1988
Kenneth B. Povodator, with whom, on the brief, was Noel R. Newman, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Paul J. Lahey, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph I. Lieberman, attorney general, and Richard J. Lynch, assistant attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff is appealing the judgment
of the trial court dismissing his administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant, Connecticut Board of Veterinary Registration and Examination.
The trial court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the defendant was served outside the thirty-day time limitation mandated by General Statutes § 4-183. We agree.
This case is controlled by the holding in Rogers v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 195 Conn. 543, 550, 489 A.2d 368 (1985), which states that "[t]he failure to file an appeal from an administrative agency within the time set by statute renders the appeal invalid and deprives the courts of jurisdiction to hear it." See also Royce v. Freedom of Information Commission, 177 Conn. 584, 587, 418 A.2d 939 (1979); Minichino v. Freedom of Information Commission, 6 Conn. App. 148, 149, 503 A.2d 1189 (1986).
There is no error.