In this dissolution action, the defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering the distribution of proceeds from the sale of various antiques co-owned by the parties. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly distributed the proceeds of that sale pendente lite without holding an evidentiary hearing and without considering the factors enumerated in General Statutes § 46b-81 (c).1 We dismiss the defendant’s appeal as untimely filed.

*58The following facts are necessary for the resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant were married in 1983 and became partners in an antiques dealership known as Sergeant Antiques. The parties operated their antiques business out of two shops in New Preston and used their marital residence as a third location where their inventoiy of antiques could be stored, displayed and sold.2

On January 11, 1993, the plaintiff instituted an action seeking a dissolution of her marriage to the defendant. Pending the dissolution, the defendant voluntarily left the marital residence and the parties entered into a stipulation that granted the plaintiff exclusive possession of the marital home. The defendant unilaterally dissolved Sergeant Antiques and the parties began to maintain the two shops in New Preston separately. Both the plaintiff and the defendant maintained records of the items sold and made regular accountings to each other of their sales.

On May 28, 1993, a hearing was held on each parties’ motion to enjoin the other from disposing of the inventory of Sergeant Antiques. The defendant testified to his *59concern that the plaintiff was removing inventory from the marital residence and selling it without his input as to price. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff might have been selling items at a price lower than the item’s value and sought an order of the court that any items for which the parties could not agree on a price would not be sold. In response, the plaintiff argued that such an order would allow the defendant to prohibit the sale of all of the antiques stored in the marital residence by refusing to agree with the plaintiff as to price. The plaintiff suggested that, in the event of disagreement as to price, a third party appraiser could be used and the parties could be bound by that appraisal. The trial court urged the parties to come to an agreement on the issue and declared a recess to give the parties an opportunity for further discussion.

During the recess, the parties came to an agreement, which they reported to the court. In the agreement, the parties stipulated that they would try to agree on the value of as many items as possible and that an expert appraiser, Ron Bourgeault, would appraise and value any items on which the parties could not agree. Until the items were valued, the parties stipulated that they would be held at the marital home and would not be sold. Items for which the parties had agreed on a price could, however, be sold by the parties. The parties further stipulated that the proceeds of the sale of these items would be distributed as follows: each party would receive one half of the proceeds of any items selling for more than $5000; the proceeds of items selling for less than $5000 could be kept and used by the party selling the item, but monthly accountings would be made to the other party. The trial court accepted the agreement of the parties and entered it as an order of the court. No appeal was taken within twenty days of the issuance of this order nor were any motions filed within the appeal period that would have extended the time to appeal. See Practice Book §§ 4009 and 4040.

*60Nearly ten months later, no appraisal had been conducted and the parties had not agreed on the price of any of the antiques held for resale in the marital residence. On March 16, 1994, the defendant filed a motion for a further restraining order seeking to enjoin the plaintiff from selling any of the items located in the marital residence until “written agreement of the parties or further order of the court.” The defendant interpreted the May 28 order to allow only for the sale of those items for which the parties could agree on the price. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff had threatened to sell the items located in the marital residence once they had been appraised and a value established. In opposition, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had refused to cooperate in the pricing of the items located in the marital residence and had interfered with efforts to obtain the third party appraisal by Bourgeault. After hearing arguments, the trial court ordered that Sotheby’s be substituted to appraise the items and, upon appraisal, they could then be sold by the plaintiff for not less than the appraised value. The order further provided that the proceeds of those items would be distributed as provided in the original order that was entered by stipulation of the parties.

On April 29,1994, the defendant appealed, raising only the issue of whether the trial court properly ordered distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the co-owned assets. The plaintiff timely moved to dismiss the defendant’s appeal as untimely filed and for lack of a final judgment.3 We denied the plaintiffs motion without prejudice to his right to raise the issues at the time of full *61hearing.4 We now dismiss the defendant’s appeal as untimely filed.5

“The right of appeal is purely statutory and is accorded only if the conditions fixed by statute and the rules of court for taking and prosecuting the appeal are met. . . . Practice Book [§ 4009] sets forth a clear and specific timetable for the filing of an appeal from a judgment of the trial court.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) DeTeves v. DeTeves, 202 Conn. 292, 295, 520 A.2d 608 (1987). “Pursuant to Practice Book § 4009,6 a party appealing shall file an appeal within twenty days from the issuance of notice of the rendition of the judgment or decision from which the appeal is taken.” Matka Corp. v. Automated Material Handling, Inc., 34 Conn. App. 723, 725, 643 A.2d 276 (1994). The period in which to file an appeal may be extended by filing a motion for extension of time to appeal; Practice Book § 4040;7 or *62by filing a motion “which, if granted, would render the judgment or decision [appealed from] ineffective . . . .” Practice Book § 4009.8

Here, the defendant appealed only from the trial court’s order regarding the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the parties’ antiques. This order was entered, by stipulation of the parties, on May 28, 1993.9 The defendant did not file an appeal from this judgment within the twenty day appeal period, and did not file any motion during the appeal period which, if granted, would have rendered the judgment or decision ineffective. See Practice Book § 4009. Nor did the defendant file a motion for extension of time to file an appeal within the time provided by Practice Book § 4040. The trial court’s orders dated April 18, 1994, did nothing to affect the manner in which the proceeds were distributed, but ordered only that the sale of the items appraised by *63Sotheby’s would become part of the original order. We, therefore, dismiss the defendant’s appeal, which attacks only the order of distribution, as untimely filed.

The appeal is dismissed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.