In Giaimo v. New Haven, 257 Conn. 481, 492-93, 778 A.2d 33 (2001) the Courtwas faced with resolving "an apparent inconsistency in the statutes governing the fund." Giaimo v. New Haven, supra, 257 Conn. at 494. In that case, the fund argued that General Statutes 31-349h barred any claim for transfer to the fund not resolved by July 1, 1999, regardless of whether the appellate process involving a particular claim was completed by that date. Giaimo v. New Haven, supra, at 494-95. The fund's opponent, the city of New Haven (city), responded that 31-349h "should apply only to claims that were not eligible for transfer prior to July 1, 1999 . . . ." Id., at 495. The Court agreed with the city's argument that if "the claim should have been transferred to the fund before July 1, 1999, the fact that the appeal process could not be completed before that date should not bar the transfer." Id. In support of this conclusion, the Court stated that "if the legislature had meant to terminate all claims, including those where the requirements for a transfer had been met and those where the requirements had not been met, on July 1, 1999, it easily could have so provided." Id., at 496-97.