Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 04 — MANAGEMENT OF STATE AGENCIES · Chapter 46 — State Appointive Officers
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-7 (2026)

Confirmation or rejection of nominations by house of General Assembly. Vacancy appointment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) On or before February 1, 1975, and quadrennially thereafter, the Governor shall submit each nomination for a department head to either house of the General Assembly. Such house shall immediately refer the nominations to its committee on executive nominations, which shall report thereon by resolution within fifteen calendar days from the date of reference. Such house, by resolution, shall confirm or reject the nomination. If confirmed, the nominee shall take office on the first day of March in the year in which the appointment is submitted, except as provided in section 4-6. If such house rejects the nomination before the first day of March in the year in which it is submitted, the procedure prescribed in subsection (b) of this section shall be followed.

(b) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, if a vacancy occurs in the office of any department head while the General Assembly is in regular session, the Governor shall, within thirty calendar days of the occurrence of the vacancy, submit his nomination to fill the vacancy to either house of the General Assembly. The house to which the nomination is submitted shall immediately refer the nomination to its committee on executive nominations, which shall report thereon by resolution within ten legislative days from the date of reference. Such house shall confirm or reject said nomination. If such house, by resolution, confirms the nomination within thirty calendar days after it is submitted, the nominee shall forthwith take office to serve at the pleasure of the Governor but no longer than the original appointee could have served under his appointment. If such house rejects the nomination within thirty calendar days after it is submitted, the Governor shall, within thirty calendar days, submit another nomination to either house of the General Assembly, provided, if any nomination is submitted less than thirty calendar days before the date established by the Constitution for adjournment of the General Assembly, and the house to which it is submitted fails to confirm or reject the nomination before its adjournment on said date, the procedure prescribed in subsection (c) of this section shall be followed.

(2) If a vacancy occurs in the office of any department head prior to the first day of March during the first regular session of the General Assembly following the election of a new Governor, the nominee of the newly elected Governor may exercise the powers and duties of the office as provided in section 4-8, as designate, until the nomination is confirmed or rejected pursuant to subdivision (1) of this subsection.

(c) If a vacancy occurs in the office of any department head while the General Assembly is not in regular session, it shall be filled by the Governor until the sixth Wednesday of the next session of the General Assembly. At the beginning of the next regular session of the General Assembly, the Governor shall submit the name of the vacancy appointee to either house of the General Assembly as he elects and the procedure prescribed in subsection (b) of this section shall be followed.

(d) No person who has been rejected by resolution of the house to which his name has been submitted by the Governor shall serve in the office for which he was nominated during the term of the house which rejected him.

(March, 1950, 1953, S. 29d; February, 1965, P.A. 574, S. 48; 1967, P.A. 656, S. 1; 1969, P.A. 481, S. 2; 1972, P.A. 294, S. 19; P.A. 87-159, S. 2; P.A. 91-1, S. 1, 2; P.A. 05-288, S. 9; P.A. 07-250, S. 17.)

History: 1965 act specified in Subsec. (c) the vacancy in office of department head be filled until sixth Wednesday of next session of general assembly; 1967 act changed deadline from 30 days before adjournment to 30 days before the first Wednesday after the first Monday in June; 1969 act made term of service “at the pleasure of the governor” but no longer than expiration of original appointees term; 1972 act changed deadline to constitutional date for adjournment; P.A. 87-159 amended Subsec. (a) to change reporting deadline for executive nominations committee from 10 legislative days from date of reference to 15 calendar days from date of reference, to change deadline for confirmation or rejection by house from “before the first day of March” to “within ten calendar days of the committee's report”, and to change date on which nominee takes office from day of confirmation to March first, except as provided in Sec. 4-6; P.A. 91-1 added Subsec. (b)(2) re powers of nominee filling vacancy occurring prior to March first during first regular session following election of new governor; P.A. 05-288 made technical changes in Subsec. (b), effective July 13, 2005; P.A. 07-250 amended Subsec. (a) by deleting requirement that nomination be confirmed or rejected within 10 calendar days of the committee's report, effective June 14, 2007.

Cited. 184 C. 1.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: Smith v. Town of Greenwich, 899 A.2d 563 (Conn. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Town of Greenwich, 899 A.2d 563 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 3× “The plaintiff argued that the evidence was admissible because it was being offered to prove the issues of control of the premises and the feasibility of precautionary measures, and to show the source of the water that formed the black ice.”
Williams v. Hous. Auth. of Bridgeport, 174 A.3d 137 (Conn. 2017). “§ 4-7 (a) (evidence of subsequent remedial measures admissible to show feasibility of precautionary measures); Streeter v.”
Off. of Consum. Couns. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 662 A.2d 1251 (Conn. 1995). “The procedure prescribed by section 4-7 shall apply to such appointments, except that the governor shall submit each nomination on or before May first, and both houses shall confirm or reject it before adjournment sine die.”
Fisk v. Town of Redding, 210 A.3d 73 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 3× “Evidence of those measures is admissible when offered to prove controverted issues such as ownership, control or feasibility of precautionary measures.”
State v. Mark, 154 A.3d 572 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “" Second, the court conducted an in-camera inspection of the police reports the defendant subpoenaed to ensure that they were properly redacted pursuant to Practice Book § 4-7 and General Statutes § 1-210. The next day, the court provided copies of the reports to the parties…”
Smith v. Town of Redding, 172 A.3d 318 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 3× “The plaintiff argued, inter alia, that the exclusionary rule regarding evidence of subsequent remedial measures; see § 4-7 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence ; 3 did not apply because it excludes evidence of voluntary remedial measures but, in this case, construction of the…”
Old Colony Gardens, Inc. v. City of Stamford, 156 A.2d 515 (Conn. 1959). “25 Spec. Laws 408, as amended. There is nothing in the general statutes expressly conferring authority to enact rent control legislation.”
Dorfman v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 227 Conn. App. 347 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). “‘‘(b) The signing of any pleading, motion, objection or request shall consti- tute a certificate that the signer has read such document, that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it, that it is not interposed for delay,…”
Vargas v. Kang Sjuen, LLC, No. AC48235 (Conn. App. Ct. June 23, 2026). · cites it 8× “Held: The trial court abused its discretion in admitting the photographs depict- ing the condition of the staircase after the repairs had been made, as the admission of that evidence was made solely for the purpose of demonstrating the defendant’s negligence, in violation of §…”
Fisk v. Redding, No. AC40216 (Conn. App. Ct. May 21, 2019). · cites it 3× “the trial court erred in excluding evidence that following his accident, the town installed a fence, which was based on his claim that evidence of the remedial repair was admissible because the town did not voluntarily install the fence but, rather, did so at the direction of…”
Williams v. Hous. Auth., No. SC19570 (Conn. Dec. 26, 2017). “§ 4-7 (a) (evidence of subsequent remedial measures admissible to show feasibility of precaution- ary measures); Streeter v.”
Williams v. Hous. Auth., No. SC19570 (Conn. Dec. 26, 2017). “§ 4-7 (a) (evidence of subsequent remedial measures admissible to show feasibility of precaution- ary measures); Streeter v.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.