When timely objection to it was raised by the plea in abatement, the trial court was correct in sustaining the demurrer to the special defense to the plea and in dismissing the appeal." Heiser v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., 150 Conn. 563, 566, 567; Phinney v. Rosgen, 162 Conn. 36, 42; Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 442. A motion to dismiss is the proper vehicle to utilize in order to attack the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
Even if it did, the general tenet that directs a liberal construction of remedial statutes does not permit us to read words into such statutes when it is apparent that the legislature has opted not to include them. See, e.g., Dept. of Public Safety v. State Board of Labor Relations , 296 Conn. 594, 605, 996 A.2d 729 (2010) (in construing labor relations act, "[w]e are not permitted to supply statutory language that the legislature may have chosen to omit" (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Robinson v. Guman , 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57 (1972) ("[t]his court should not be asked to read into the statutes words [that] are not there"). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction under § 52-417 to confirm an interest arbitration award issued pursuant to § 7-473c.
"`Courts cannot, by construction, read into statutes provisions which are not clearly stated.'" Glastonbury Co. v. Gillies, 209 Conn. 175, 179, 550 A.2d 8 (1988); Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57 (1972). The statutory language is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for construction.
Absent such a direction by the legislature, we will not read such a requirement into the wetlands act. See Glastonbury Co. v. Gillies, 209 Conn. 175, 179, 181, 550 A.2d 8 (1988); State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, 208 Conn. 709, 727, 546 A.2d 830 (1988); Burnham v. Administrator, 184 Conn. 317, 325, 439 A.2d 1008 (1981); Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57 (1972). See General Statutes 22a-19 (b) and 22a-41 (b), and Glastonbury Inland Wetland and Watercourse Regulations 6, 1.4(b).
"Courts cannot, by construction, read into statutes provisions which are not clearly stated." Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57 (1972); Johnson v. Manson, 196 Conn. 309, 314, 493 A.2d 846 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1063, 106 S.Ct. 813, 88 L.Ed.2d 787 (1986); Houston v. Warden, 169 Conn. 247, 251-52, 363 A.2d 121 (1975). "[T]he intent of the legislature is to be found not in what it meant to say but in what it did say."
Courts cannot, by construction, read into statutes provisions which are not clearly stated. Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57; United Aircraft Corporation v. Fusari, 163 Conn. 401, 415, 311 A.2d 65. `It is not for us to search out some intent which we may believe the legislature actually had and give effect to it, but we are confined to the intention which is expressed in the words it has used.' Connecticut Light Power Co. v. Walsh, 134 Conn. 295, 301, 57 A.2d 128.
Colli v. Real Estate Commission, 169 Conn. 445, 452, 364 A.2d 167; Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Water Resources Commission, 162 Conn. 89, 98, 291 A.2d 721. Where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts cannot, by construction, read into statutes provisions which are not clearly stated. Houston v. Warden, 169 Conn. 247, 251, 363 A.2d 121; Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57. The plaintiff's ownership of land which abuts the premises in question fits squarely within the clear language of General Statutes 8-8. Therefore, the trial court was correct in ruling that the plaintiff had standing to appeal.
The statutory language of 18-7a and 18-7 is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, courts cannot, by construction, read into such statutes provisions which are not clearly stated. Houston v. Warden, 169 Conn. 247, 251, 363 A.2d 121 (1975); Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57 (1972). To state it otherwise, where the legislative intent is clear, and the language used to express it is unambiguous, there is no room for statutory construction.
But "[c]ourts cannot, by construction, read into statutes provisions which are not clearly stated. Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57; United Aircraft Corporation v. Fusari, 163 Conn. 401, 415, 311 A.2d 65." Houston v. Warden, supra, 251. International Business Machines Corporation v. Brown, 167 Conn. 123, 134, 355 A.2d 236 (1974).
Delehanty v. Pitkin, 76 Conn. 412, 419, 56 A. 881, appeal dismissed, 199 U.S. 602, 26 S.Ct. 748, 50 L.Ed. 328.' Heiser v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., 150 Conn. 563, 565, 192 A.2d 44." Robinson v. Guman, 163 Conn. 439, 444, 311 A.2d 57. The plaintiff also relies upon the decisions of this court which have defined "waiver" as the "voluntary relinquishment of a known right."