Because the court's decision granting, in part, the defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment did not dispose of all causes of action against a particular party, nor did the court make the requisite determinations to trigger the exceptions set forth in Practice Book §61-3 and §61-4(a), the decision was not an appealable final judgment. James Harnage filed a seven count complaint against the commissioner of correction and others, seeking monetary and injunctive relief and claiming, inter alia, an unreasonable and unconstitutional blanket policy of performing strip body cavity searches. The plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment claiming no genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the alleged unconstitutional strip searches conducted by the defendants. The defendants objected and filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's cross-motion, in part, on the ground of sovereign immunity, as it related to the plaintiff's claim for monetary damages. The plaintiff appealed raising several claims. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the claims raised, finding that the trial court's decision was not an appealable final judgment. The court's decision, granting, in part, the defendants' cross-motion for partial summary judgment, disposed of only part of the plaintiff's complaint—his claim for monetary damages in the first two counts. The plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief in the first two counts and claims in other counts remain pending. The court's decision did not dispose of all causes of action against a particular party nor did the court make the requisite determinations to trigger the exceptions in Practice Book §61-3 and §61-4(a). As such, the decision was not an appealable final judgment. The plaintiff's appeal from the court's denial of his motion for partial summary judgment based on the existence of genuine issues of material fact also did not constitute a final judgment for purposes of appeal. The claims remain pending and the rights of the parties to which they correspond still can be affected by a trial on the merits of the case.

VIEW FULL CASE