MATTHEW M. MARTOWSKA
KATHRYN R. WHITE
May 23, 2018
for joint custody of the parties' minor child, and for
other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of Hartford and tried to the court, Epstein,
J.; judgment granting, inter alia, joint legal custody
to the parties and visitation rights to the plaintiff;
thereafter, the parties filed a psychological evaluation with
the court; subsequently, the court, Suarez, J.,
ordered, inter alia, that the plaintiff could review but not
obtain a copy of the psychological evaluation, and the
plaintiff appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Matthew M. Martowska, self-represented, the appellant
A. Tarpey, for the appellee (defendant).
Alvord, Sheldon and Bear, Js.
plaintiff, Matthew M. Martowska, appeals from the 2016
postjudgment order of the trial court that, although allowing
the plaintiff to inspect a psychological evaluation performed
in 2012 as part of a then pending proceeding regarding the
parties' custody/ visitation matter, prevented the
plaintiff from obtaining a copy of the evaluation. On appeal,
the plaintiff raises a number of claims regarding the
court's order prohibiting the release of a copy of the
2012 evaluation. We conclude that the postjudgment order at
issue is not a final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
the underlying facts and lengthy procedural history of this
case are not relevant to the issues on appeal. Accordingly,
we provide only the facts and history pertinent to our
discussion, some of which are set forth in this court's
decision in Martowska v. White, 149 Conn.App. 314,
87 A.3d 1201 (2014). The plaintiff and the defendant, Kathryn
R. White, are the parents of one minor child. The plaintiff
filed a custody/visitation application in October, 2005.
Id., 316. In 2007, the parties sought final custody
and visitation orders, and the court issued a memorandum of
decision on October 9, 2007. Id. On January 13,
2012, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking enforcement of
visitation orders contained in the court's October, 2007
decision. Id., 317. As part of a February 7, 2012
agreement resolving that motion, the parties agreed to
undergo a psychological evaluation ‘‘for
custodial/parenting plan purposes.'' Id.,
317- 18. Both parties submitted to a psychological
evaluation, and the evaluation was filed with the court.
Id., 318 n.6. The defendant filed a motion to
release the psychological evaluation, which the court granted
over the plaintiff's objection on January 16, 2013.
Id., 319. The court order was stayed pending an
appeal to this court. Id. In a decision released
April 8, 2014, this court affirmed the trial court's
order releasing the psychological evaluation, and stated, in
a footnote, that ‘‘[a]fter today, the evaluation
can be released.'' Id., 324 n.14.
May, 2014, and December, 2016, no motions were filed in this
custody/visitation matter in the trial court. The plaintiff
and his family members did, however, engage in a series of
communications with judges and staff of the Superior Court.
In November and December, 2014, the plaintiff sent two
letters to Delinda Walden of the Hartford Superior Court,
seeking confirmation of the following: the plaintiff's
mother was denied a copy of the psychological evaluation,
neither party may obtain a copy of the evaluation, no third
parties may access the evaluation, and Walden is unable to
provide a copy of the evaluation for use in a different case
pending in Massachusetts. On September 11, 2015, the
plaintiff again wrote to Walden inquiring whether he could
obtain a copy of the psychological evaluation, and whether he
could share the copy with Dr. Denise Mumley in connection
with an order of a Massachusetts court. The plaintiff wrote
that the psychological evaluation would ‘‘be
used in a different case unrelated to [the
defendant]'' and further stated that the
evaluation ‘‘will be shared initially with Dr.
Mumley (as part of my evaluation) and thereafter with
others.'' (Emphasis added.) Also on September 11,
2015, the plaintiff's mother sent an e-mail to Walden,
inquiring whether the plaintiff would be permitted to obtain
a copy of the evaluation. Walden responded in part that Judge
Suarez had informed her that ‘‘we can only
release the evaluation for purposes involving the case here -
it is not available for any other purpose. Otherwise [the
plaintiff] will need to file a motion.''
October 12, 2016, the plaintiff appeared at the Superior
Court to review the 2012 psychological evaluation. According
to the plaintiff, he was denied access to the evaluation. The
following day, the plaintiff sent an e-mail to Kevin Diadomo
of the Hartford Superior Court, in which he represented that
his inquiry was ‘‘for the purpose of potentially
bringing forward a motion involving the case here in CT, but
I needed to review the [evaluation] before I could decide my
plan of action.'' He requested that Diadomo share the
e-mail with Judge Suarez. The plaintiff also sent letters to
a number of judges of the Superior Court, including Judge
court, Suarez, J., then scheduled a status
conference in the matter for December 6, 2016. Following the
status conference, the court issued an order providing that
‘‘[t]he plaintiff may review the psychological
evaluation dated November 23, 2012, in the clerk's
office. The plaintiff is reminded that the information cannot
be used in any other action. He was reminded that he cannot
have copies of any of the
information.'' It is from this order that the plaintiff
examining the plaintiff's claims on appeal, we must first
determine whether we have jurisdiction. It is axiomatic that
the jurisdiction of this court is restricted to appeals from
judgments that are final. General Statutes §§
51-197a and 52-263; Practice Book § 61-1 . . . . Thus,
as a general matter, an interlocutory ruling may not be
appealed pending the final disposition of a case.''
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Parrotta v. Parrotta, 119 Conn.App. 472, 475- 76,
988 A.2d 383 (2010).
plaintiff appeals from a discovery order prohibiting release
of a copy of the psychological evaluation. ‘‘It
is well established in our case law that interlocutory
rulings on motions related to discovery generally are not
immediately appealable.'' Cunniffe v.
Cunniffe, 150 Conn.App. 419, 433, 91 A.3d 497, cert.
denied, 314 Conn. 935, 102 A.3d 1112 (2014). As an
interlocutory order, this order would be immediately
appealable only if it met at least one prong of the two prong
test articulated by our Supreme Court in State v.
Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). Under
Curcio, ‘‘[a]n otherwise interlocutory
order is appealable in two circumstances: (1) where the order
or action terminates a separate and distinct proceeding, or
(2) where the order or action so concludes the rights of the
parties that further proceedings cannot affect
them.'' Id.; see also Radzik v.
Connecticut Children's Medical Center, 317 Conn.
313, 318, 118 A.3d 526 (2015) ...