The commission appealed from the judgment of the
trial court to the Appellate Court. We transferred
the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes
§ 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.
I
The commission, relying on Stamford v. Commission
on Human Rights & Opportunities, Office of Public Hear-
ings, supra, 351 Conn. 298, first claims that the trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Judicial
Branch’s interlocutory administrative appeal under §§
4-183 and 46a-94a (a). The commission argues that,
because the Judicial Branch eventually could have pre-
vailed on the merits in the administrative proceedings,
postponement of the appeal may not have resulted in an
inadequate remedy for the Judicial Branch. In response,
the Judicial Branch argues that postponement of the
appeal would be an inadequate remedy because it has
asserted colorable claims of immunity from suit, and
it would necessarily lose the benefit of that immunity
if it were improperly subject to the burdens of further
administrative proceedings. We agree with the Judicial
Branch and conclude that, because it raised a colorable
claim of immunity from suit derived from the separation
of powers doctrine, the commission’s denial of its motion
to dismiss was immediately appealable under § 4-183 (b).
Our recent decision in Stamford v. Commission on
Human Rights & Opportunities, Office of Public Hear-
ings, supra, 351 Conn. 298, is instructive. In that case,
we considered the availability of interlocutory appeals
to the Superior Court from the rulings of the commis-
sion’s referees. See id., 300–301, 314–21. We explained
that Ҥ 46a-94a (a) of the [Connecticut Fair Employment
Practices Act] requires the existence of a ‘final order’ to
bring an ‘appeal to the Superior Court in accordance with
section 4-183.’ ” Id., 315. “Section 4-183 (a) authorizes
appeals from an agency’s ‘final decision’ by any person
who has exhausted all administrative remedies and is
aggrieved by the final decision, and § 4-183 (b) permits
an appeal, under very limited circumstances, from ‘a
State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch v. Commission on Human Rights &
Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings