Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Citation
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Parent Document
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1998-05-19
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 48 Conn. App. 711 (1998)
Full Text
1,033 charsThe department issued its denial of the plaintiffs request for an emergency security deposit on August 29, 1995. On October 12, 1995, forty-four days after the issuance of the judgment, the plaintiff attempted to appeal from the denial of her request for an emergency security deposit. This was accomplished by depositing the appeal documents in the United States mail by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the commissioner of the department of social services and to the office of the attorney general. The attorney general’s office and the office of the commissioner of the department of social services received the appeal documents on October 16, 1995, forty-eight days after notice of the denial of the requested emergency security deposit was mailed to the plaintiff. The trial court found that service was not completed until it was received by the defendants and, therefore, that the plaintiff had not satisfied the requirement of § 4-183 (c), depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree.