Id., 289. Conversely, in State v. Thornton, 55 Conn. App. 28, 739 A.2d 271 (1999), the defendant was convicted of risk of injury to a child, and this court held that it was not proper to impose as a condition of probation the payment of money into a fund to compensate the victim for presently unknown treatment costs. The court held: "[These costs were] far too remote to be considered `reasonably related to the offense' or `easily ascertainable damages for injury' to be allowed under § 53a-28 (c)."

g motion to strike on alternative ground rather than remanding to afford party opportunity to amend pleading); Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction , 280 Conn. 514, 522–25, 911 A.2d 712 (2006) (failure of trial judge to remove himself from presiding over defendant's habeas petition plain error when judge had represented defendant at his guilty plea); Belcher v. State , 99 Conn.App. 353, 354–58, 913 A.2d 1117 (2007) (judge's failure to disqualify himself based on his appearance as counsel on brief filed on behalf of defendant on direct appeal was plain error); State v. Cotton , 69 Conn.App. 505, 506, 794 A.2d 1116 (2002) (complete failure to instruct jury as to meaning of term "drug dependency" is plain error); State v. Hair , 68 Conn.App. 695, 706, 792 A.2d 179 (plain error for court to instruct jury on offense with which defendant was not charged and then accept jury's guilty verdict for offense on which jury had not been instructed), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 925, 797 A.2d 522 (2002) ; State v. Thornton , 55 Conn.App. 28, 33–34, 739 A.2d 271 (1999) (plain error to require defendant to pay money into fund for future treatment or counseling of victim, as special condition of probation). In contrast, however, Golding review is a rule of reviewability, focused not on the magnitude of the error, but rather, on the type of error alleged, with the ultimate goal of determining whether the court may review such error.State v. Golding , supra, 213 Conn. at 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (review of unpreserved claim only when "the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right").

otion to strike on alternative ground rather than remanding to afford party opportunity to amend pleading); Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction , 280 Conn. 514, 522–25, 911 A.2d 712 (2006) (failure of trial judge to remove himself from presiding over defendant's habeas petition plain error when judge had represented defendant at his guilty plea); Belcher v. State , 99 Conn. App. 353, 354–58, 913 A.2d 1117 (2007) (judge's failure to disqualify himself based on his appearance as counsel on brief filed on behalf of defendant on direct appeal was plain error); State v. Cotton , 69 Conn. App. 505, 506, 794 A.2d 1116 (2002) (complete failure to instruct jury as to meaning of term ‘drug dependency’ is plain error); State v. Hair , 68 Conn. App. 695, 706, 792 A.2d 179 (plain error for court to instruct jury on offense with which defendant was not charged and then accept jury's guilty verdict for offense on which jury had not been instructed), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 925, 797 A.2d 522 (2002) ; State v. Thornton , 55 Conn. App. 28, 33–34, 739 A.2d 271 (1999) (plain error to require defendant to pay money into fund for future treatment or counseling of victim, as special condition of probation)." State v. McClain , supra, at 814, 155 A.3d 209.

A condition of probation may be challenged prior to the commencement of probation. See State v. Ortiz, 83 Conn. App. 142, 161-62, 848 A.2d 1246 (concluding defendant's challenge to condition of probation restricting contact with children ripe despite defendant's incarceration), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 915, 853 A.2d 530 (2004); see also State v. Thornton, 55 Conn. App. 28, 30-31, 739 A.2d 271 (1999) (reviewing condition of probation consisting of restitution to be completed by end of third year of probation despite defendant's incarceration). "[I]t is not necessary that [a] petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights."

The defendant counters that this issue is ripe for review and points out that this court has in fact reviewed a condition of probation consisting of restitution to be completed by the end of a third year of probation despite the fact that the defendant was still incarcerated. See State v. Thornton, 55 Conn. App. 28, 30-31, 739 A.2d 271 (1999). He also argues that the state's ripeness argument would render superfluous Practice Book §§ 43-32 and 61-13, which permit a defendant to file a motion to stay the inception of probation while an appeal is taken.

Id. Indeed, plain error review is more appropriately applied to unambiguous instances of impropriety; for instance, where the trial court has failed to apply a clearly relevant statute to a case. See State v. Thornton, 55 Conn. App. 28, 32, 739 A.2d 271 (1999). We accordingly decline to review the claim.

Plain error review may be appropriate when a court fails to follow or apply a statute that is clearly relevant to the case. See generally State v. Thornton, 55 Conn. App. 28, 739 A.2d 271 (1999). Thus, the issue is whether a court is required to undertake an analysis pursuant to § 53a-28 (c) when, as part of a plea bargain, the defendant agrees to pay restitution.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Thornton, 55 Conn. App. 28, 31, 739 A.2d 271 (1999). "As explained in detail in Lynch v. Granby Holdings, Inc., [ 230 Conn. 95, 98, 644 A.2d 325 (1994)], our sua sponte invocation of plain error review is warranted when the following requirements are satisfied: (1) we discuss the rule and articulate why it is appropriate; and (2) we give the parties an opportunity to brief the issue."

If this court were to conclude in favor of the defendant that the statute does not apply, the trial court would have committed plain error, which would be reviewable by this court. See State v. Thornton, 55 Conn. App. 28, 31, 739 A.2d 271 (1999). "[T]he process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature.

Because this action for return of the funds remaining after a tax sale is grounded in equity, the state referee has broad equitable powers to determine, sua sponte if necessary, the equities of the parties and the grounds of their claims under General Statutes § 12-157 (i)(2). See State v. Thornton, 55 Conn. App. 28, 31, 739 A.2d 271 (1999);Hope's Architectural Prod., Inc. v. Fox Steel Co., 44 Conn. App. 759, 763, 692 A.2d 829 (1997). Even though the holding in State v. Thornton regards the appellate procedure, the equitable principles are also applicable to the decision by a trial court or a state referee.