Connecticut Court of Appeals, 1989

City of Shelton v. Carothers

City of Shelton v. Carothers
Connecticut Court of Appeals · Decided March 22, 1989
18 Conn. App. 132; 556 A.2d 1060; 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 97

City of Shelton v. Carothers

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs are appealing the decision of the trial court dismissing their administrative appeal because it was untimely served. We agree with the trial court.

*133The plaintiffs failed to serve notice of their appeal within thirty days of the named defendant’s decision as required by General Statutes § 4-183 (b). Such failure to conform to the statute is fatal to the appeal. See, e.g., Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 413, 419, 533 A.2d 879 (1987), aff’d on rehearing, 206 Conn. 374, 538 A.2d 202 (1988); Basilicato v. Department of Public Utility Control, 197 Conn. 320, 324, 497 A.2d 48 (1985); Rogers v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 195 Conn. 543, 550, 489 A.2d 368 (1985); Hanson v. Department of Income Maintenance, 10 Conn. App. 14, 17-18, 521 A.2d 208 (1987).

There is no error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.