Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 226 Conn. App. 175 (2024)

(internal quotation marks omitted)). We agree with Bao-
       tou that we have jurisdiction over the present appeal.
          ‘‘The jurisdiction of the appellate courts is restricted
       to appeals from judgments that are final. General Stat-
       utes §§ 51-197a and 52-263; Practice Book § [61-1]
       . . . . The policy concerns underlying the final judg-
       ment rule are to discourage piecemeal appeals and to
       facilitate the speedy and orderly disposition of cases
       at the trial court level. . . . The appellate courts have
       a duty to dismiss, even on [their] own initiative, any
       appeal that [they lack] jurisdiction to hear.’’ (Internal
       quotation marks omitted.) Heyward v. Judicial Dept.,
       159 Conn. App. 794, 799–800, 124 A.3d 920 (2015).
          ‘‘An otherwise interlocutory order is appealable in
       two circumstances: (1) where the order or action termi-
       nates 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. . . . That
       the present matter arises postjudgment does not affect
       that analysis: the final judgment rule still applies.’’ (Cita-
       tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rick-
       etts v. Ricketts, 203 Conn. App. 1, 4–5, 247 A.3d 223
       (2021); id., 5 (citing well established two part test of
       appealability set forth in State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27,
       31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983)).
         ‘‘General Statutes §§ 52-1027 and 52-1078 govern the
       intervention of nonparties to an action and provide
         7
           ‘‘General Statutes § 52-102 provides in relevant part: ‘Upon motion made
       by any party or nonparty to a civil action, the person named in the party’s
       motion or the nonparty so moving, as the case may be, (1) may be made a
       party by the court if that person has or claims an interest in the controversy,
       or any part thereof, adverse to the plaintiff, or (2) shall be made a party by
       the court if that person is necessary for a complete determination or settle-
       ment of any question involved therein . . . .’ ’’ BNY Western Trust v. Roman,
       295 Conn. 194, 203 n.6, 990 A.2d 853 (2010).
         8
           ‘‘General Statutes § 52-107 provides: ‘The court may determine the con-
       troversy as between the parties before it, if it can do so without prejudice
       to the rights of others; but, if a complete determination cannot be had
       without the presence of other parties, the court may direct that such other
Page 8                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0