Here, neither Curcio prong is satisfied. See C P Excavating Contractors, Inc. v. Ardmare Construction Co., 37 Conn. App. 222, 227, 655 A.2d 278 (1995). The final judgment issue does not implicate Practice Book § 4002.

See Practice Book § 4002(b) and (c)." C P Excavating Contractors, Inc. v. Ardmore Construction Co., 37 Conn. App. 222, 225-26, 655 A.2d 278 (1995). The rules of practice do not address the present situation where a partial judgment has been rendered upon a default of one of the parties.

If either or both of these counts ultimately are decided in the plaintiff's favor, the result would be merely that additional support exists for the court's conclusion at present that no insurance coverage is available for the claims asserted by the intervenor. Conversely, if either or both of the remaining counts ultimately are decided in the defendants' favor, the end result would remain unchanged as coverage still would be unavailable on the basis of the court's rulings as to counts one and two. Compare C & P Excavating Contractors, Inc. v. Ardmare Construction Co., 37 Conn. App. 222, 227, 655 A.2d 278 (1995) (no final judgment under Curcio where ruling on remaining claims could impact parties' liability, amount of damages). Consequently, we conclude that there is a final judgment pursuant to the second prong of Curcio such that this matter properly is before us.

Practice Book § 4002(b) does not help the defendant because, although it allows appeal after judgment on certain stricken pleadings, it cannot be extended to include special defenses.C P Excavating Contractors, Inc. v. Ardmare Construction Co., 37 Conn. App. 222, 226, 655 A.2d 278 (1995). Accordingly, we cannot consider that portion of the defendant's appeal that pertains to the striking of his special defenses.

After receiving this notice, the plaintiff withdrew the second count of the complaint. This case is controlled by C P Excavating Contractors, Inc. v. Ardmare Construction Co., 37 Conn. App. 222, 655 A.2d 278 (1995), in which we held that the trial court's failure to render judgment on one count of a complaint resulted in the lack of a final judgment for purposes of appeal. "`"The lack of a final judgment is a threshold question that implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of this court." Schick v. Windsor Airmotive Division/Barnes Group, 31 Conn. App. 819, 822, 627 A.2d 478 (1993), citing Walton v. New Hartford, 223 Conn. 155, 162 n. 9, 612 A.2d 1153 (1992).