Sowell v. DiCara
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. 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 electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and 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. ****************************************************** JULIE M. SOWELL v. DEIRDRE H. DICARA ET AL. (SC 19534) Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.* Argued September 22—officially released October 25, 2016 Dennis M. Buckley, with whom was George E. Mendillo, for the appellant (plaintiff). Jeffrey J. Tinley, with whom, on the brief, was Amita P. Rossetti, for the appellees (named defendant et al.). Opinion PER CURIAM. In the course of a civil action pending between the plaintiff, Julie M. Sowell, and the defendants Southbury-Middlebury Youth and Family Services, Inc. (Southbury-Middlebury), Dierdre H. DiCara, and Mary Jane McClay,1 the plaintiff sought to support her challenge to Southbury-Middlebury’s counterclaim against her by filing an application, pursuant to General Statutes § 33-1089, to determine the validity of the election of its directors and officers. The plaintiff now appeals, upon our grant of her petition for certification,2 from the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing her appeal from the decision of the trial court granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the application. In the present appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the trial court’s dismissal of the application was not an appealable final judgment under the first or second prong of State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. * This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Justices Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson. Although Justices Espinosa and Robinson were not present at oral argument, they have read the briefs and appendices, and have listened to a recording of oral argument prior to participating in this decision. 1 DiCara and McClay are, respectively, the executive director and the chairperson of the board of directors of Southbury-Middlebury, which is a nonprofit corporation that has been dissolved and is winding up its affairs. Although Regional School District Number 15 is also a defendant in this case, it is not a party to the present appeal. Accordingly, all references to the defendants hereinafter are to Southbury-Middlebury, DiCara, and McClay. 2 We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment?’’ Sowell v. DiCara, 319 Conn. 906, 122 A.3d 639 (2015).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
