In Green Rock Ridge, Inc. v. Kobernat, 250 Conn. 488, 736 A.2d 851 (1999), the plaintiff initially complied with monetary sanctions for refusing to answer questions at his deposition, but later brought a writ of error, claiming that the sanctions were improper. The court dismissed the writ of error, reasoning that "given the facts of this case, and our well established rules regarding reviewability of discovery orders, the sanctions order with which the plaintiff complied does not constitute a final judgment from which a writ of error lies. Just as an appeal, a writ of error requires a final judgment as a predicate. See Practice Book 72-1; see also State v. Ross, 189 Conn. 42, 51, 454 A.2d 266 (1983) (the use of a writ of error would in no way overcome the objections . . . to the appeal process based upon . . . the absence of finality in the judgment). "An order issued upon a motion for discovery is ordinarily not appealable because it does not constitute a final judgment, at least in civil actions. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Fairfield Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 180 Conn. 223, 226, 429 A.2d 478 (1980) . . . . "Although this sanctions order was not itself a discovery order, it was an order for sanctions for failure to comply with the discovery procedure of a deposition. We can perceive no reason or policy why we should treat the sanctions order differently, for purposes of finality of judgment, from the discovery procedure of which it is a part. We, therefore, regard it as governed by the same principles of finality as discovery orders." Green Rock Ridge, Inc. v. Kobernat, supra, 250 Conn. 497-98.