AC47023 - Housing Authority v. Cyr ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff, the Housing Authority of the town of Manchester, appeals from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Brandon Cyr. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss after concluding that the pretermination notice and notice to quit were invalid and that, therefore, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the summary process action. The defendant disagrees and further contends, for the first time on appeal and as an alternative ground for affirming the judgment of the trial court, that the pretermination notice and notice to quit did not comply with federal notice requirements, and, therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude that the court improperly dismissed this summary process action.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47509 - Faryniarz v. Ramirez ("Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Ansonia-Milford. The plaintiff judgment creditor appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the defendant judgment debtor’s motion to exempt from execution certain accounts at a financial institution containing retirement funds. We conclude that, pursuant to § 52-367b (i), the plaintiff had seven days from the rendering of the court’s March 8, 2024 order to appeal to this court and, therefore, the plaintiff’s appeal on April 1, 2024, was not timely filed. Accordingly, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.")

AC47514 - Pearlman v. Gervolino ("The plaintiff landlord appealed from the trial court’s judgment with respect to its award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant tenant on the count of his counterclaim alleging violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) in connection with the plaintiff’s handling of his security deposit. In calculating the defendant’s award of attorney’s fees, however, the court included in its award all the costs and fees set forth in the defendant’s affidavit. Because the court did not limit its award of attorney’s fees to those fees incurred on the defendant’s CUTPA claim, but, rather, expressly awarded the defendant all ‘‘attorney’s fees and [costs incurred] in the defense of the plaintiff’s action and the prosecution of his counterclaims,’’ we conclude that the court abused its discretion in calculating the amount of attorney’s fees and costs the defendant was entitled to recover under CUTPA. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new hearing on the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47982 - Housing Authority v. Singleton ("In this summary process eviction action, the plaintiff, the Housing Authority of the city of Stamford doing business as Charter Oak Communities, appeals from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Pauline Singleton on the basis of her special defense of equitable nonforfeiture. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) failed to render a decision with respect to counts two through seven of its complaint, which contained independent grounds for eviction; (2) determined with respect to count one that the defendant had proven her special defense of equitable nonforfeiture; (3) failed to recognize that equitable nonforfeiture was inapplicable as a matter of law because ‘federal law is controlling regarding the relevant portions of the subject lease’; and (4) concluded that the defendant had proven her special defense of equitable nonforfeiture ‘as a factual matter.’ Because we conclude that the court failed to dispose of all counts of the complaint brought against the defendant and, thus, that the appeal was not taken from a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46144 - Worth v. Picard ("The dispositive issue in this appeal filed by the self-represented plaintiff, Keyin Worth, is whether the trial court, following an Audubon hearing, properly granted motions to enforce a settlement agreement filed by the defendants, Christopher J. Picard, AllPoints Realty, Inc. (AllPoints), Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC (MCS), Silver and Oak Realty CT, LLC (Silver and Oak), Jonathan Gineo, and Michael Garcarz. We conclude that the trial court properly granted the motions to enforce the settlement agreement and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC48082 - 62-64 Bank Street, LLC v. Amelio ("In this summary process appeal, the self-represented defendant, Carmine Amelio, appeals from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, 62-64 Bank Street, LLC, as well as from the court's denial of his motion to reargue. On October 11, 2024, the plaintiff moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that it is (1) jurisdictionally late pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-35 (b) and/or (2) moot because the defendant is no longer in possession of the premises at issue. On February 5, 2025, we denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss and indicated that an opinion would follow. This opinion sets forth the reasoning for our decision. . . .

The motion to dismiss is denied. In this opinion the other judges concurred.")

AC47702 - ECR 2 LLC v. Thompson ("In this summary process action, the defendant, Raschid Thompson, appeals from the judgment of possession, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, ECR 2 LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) violated his constitutional right to due process by denying his motion for a continuance of the trial date and refusing to consider his motion to preclude evidence and testimony that had not previously been disclosed by the plaintiff; (2) applied the wrong legal standard in rejecting his special defense of equitable nonforfeiture; and (3) erred in rejecting his special defense that he had a right to cure, and did cure, his nonpayment of rent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Constitutional Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46040 - Freccia v. Freccia ("In this opinion, we resolve claims raised in three separate but related appeals, Docket Nos. AC 46037, AC 46038, and AC 46040. In the summary process action underlying AC 46037, the plaintiff, Theresa K. Freccia, in her capacity as the executor of the estate of Frank J. Freccia, Jr. (decedent), brought a summary process action against the defendants, Guin Freccia and David D'Andrea, seeking to obtain a judgment of possession with respect to real property located at 95 Bryam Road in Greenwich. The court rendered a judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff in that action. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the plaintiff lacked the power to commence the underlying summary process action, (2) the court improperly failed to conclude that they had a present right to remain in the subject property or that equitable considerations precluded the plaintiff from obtaining a judgment in her favor, and (3) the court prejudiced the defendants by consolidating five related summary process actions for trial.

In AC 46038, the plaintiff, Theresa K. Freccia, in her individual capacity, brought a summary process action against the defendants, Frank J. Freccia III, Tammie Freccia, Locksley Freccia, and D'Artagnan Freccia, seeking to obtain a judgment of possession with respect to real property located at '40 Locust Street, Building 2 and Garage' in Greenwich. In that action, the court rendered a judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the notice to quit served on them was invalid, (2) the court improperly failed to conclude that equitable considerations precluded the plaintiff from obtaining judgment in her favor, and (3) the court prejudiced the defendants by consolidating five related summary process actions for trial.

In AC 46040, the plaintiff, Theresa K. Freccia, in her capacity as executor of the estate of the decedent, brought a summary process action against the defendant, Frank J. Freccia III, doing business as Freccia Brothers Auto Sales, seeking to obtain a judgment of possession with respect to real property located at 246-248 West Putnam Avenue in Greenwich. In that action, the court rendered a judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the action, (2) the court improperly failed to conclude that he had a present right to remain in the subject property or that equitable considerations precluded the plaintiff from obtaining a judgment in her favor, and (3) the court prejudiced the defendant by consolidating five related summary process actions for trial.

We affirm the judgments of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47173 - Troy Laundry Building, LLC v. Beautiful Life Adult Daycare, LLC ("In this commercial summary process action, the defendant, Beautiful Life Adult Daycare, LLC, appeals from the judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Troy Laundry Building, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss, in which it argued that the notice to quit was defective. The defendant also claims that the court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because (1) there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant had materially breached the lease agreement and/or whether that breach was excused, and (2) the court impermissibly found facts regarding whether an additional security deposit was owed. We do not reach the merits of the defendant's claims because, during the pendency of this appeal, the defendant vacated the premises, and, accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.")

AC46774 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions, LLC ("In this housing discrimination action, the defendants, The Mansions, LLC (Mansions), 75 Hockanum, Inc., and Candace Barnard, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), and the intervening plaintiffs, Wendy Pizzoferrato (Wendy) and Rudy Pizzoferrato (Rudy). The court found that the defendants violated the state fair housing laws, General Statutes § 46a-64b et seq., by constructively denying the Pizzoferratos' request for an accommodation of the defendants' 'no pets' policy for Wendy's two emotional support dogs. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that (1) Wendy needed her emotional support dogs to ameliorate the effects of a disability when the court found only that the defendants regarded her as being disabled and not that she actually was disabled, (2) two emotional support dogs were necessary for Wendy's equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling, and (3) the defendants constructively denied the Pizzoferratos' request for an accommodation. We agree with the defendants' second claim and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46873 - Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon ("In this summary process action, the defendant Kristine Noon appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Brook Run Development Corp. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that her residential lease with the plaintiff had terminated because a specific provision of the lease did not operate to automatically renew the lease. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46972 - Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC v. Madden ("The self-represented defendant, Peter Madden, appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to restore to the docket (motion to restore) the summary process action filed against him by the plaintiff, Colchester Estate Ventures, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to restore because he had acquired a vested right to litigate various allegations of malfeasance by the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46290 - Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff, Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Lisa Glicklin. The plaintiff initiated this summary process action against the defendant claiming that the defendant repeatedly violated the plaintiff's smoke-free housing policy. In rendering judgment for the defendant, the trial court rejected the plaintiff's claim on the basis that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had not cured the violation of the plaintiff's policy. On appeal, the plaintiff raises interrelated claims. First, it claims that the court improperly raised sua sponte the unpleaded special defense of cure to defeat its summary process action. Second, it claims that, even if it was proper for the court to raise the special defense of cure sua sponte, the court improperly placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant did not cure her violations. The defendant, in addition to disputing the plaintiff's claims, argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action because of alleged inadequacies in the pretermination notice provided to the defendant. For the reasons that follow, we reject the defendant's jurisdictional argument and agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47018 - Samsel v. Parks ("In this summary process action, the defendant, William Parks, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff, Jozef Samsel. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to open the judgment. We dismiss the defendant's appeal as moot.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20826 - PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford ("In this appeal, we must interpret provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (act), §§ 8-266 through 8-282, also known as the URRA, to determine whether a city can maintain a lien against a property to secure repayment of costs incurred when relocating residents who find themselves displaced following the city's enforcement of its building codes, even if the property owner did not cause the building to become uninhabitable. The defendant, the city of Hartford, contends that the trial court improperly discharged its lien on the property of the plaintiff, PPC Realty, LLC. Relying on the statutory text of the act, we agree with the defendant that its lien was proper, and we reverse the trial court's judgment.")

SC20826 Concurrence - PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46505 - Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC v. Duong ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff, Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC, leased property located at 295 Flanders Road in East Lyme (premises) and subleased the premises to the defendants, Anh Duong doing business as Daddy's Noodle Bar and Daddy's Noodle Bar 2, LLC. The defendants appeal from the trial court's judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiff. It is undisputed that the defendants failed to pay rent in a timely manner. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff was not required to provide them with a pretermination notice and an opportunity to cure their default for nonpayment of rent within ten days of such notice. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46467 - Meineke Bristol, LLC v. Premier Auto, LLC ("Premier Auto, LLC (Premier Auto), and Patrick Flynn appeal from the judgments rendered by the trial court in four related civil actions that were consolidated for trial. The actions encompass various claims by multiple entities concerning the sale by Vazhayil Babu of three businesses as well as associated leases, notes, and guarantee agreements to Premier Auto. On appeal, Premier Auto and Patrick Flynn claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it precluded them from presenting certain evidence. Premier Auto also claims that the court erred in determining that Premier Auto failed to prove its breach of contract cause of action. For the reasons set forth subsequently in this opinion, we conclude that the portion of the appeal concerning the first claim is moot and must be dismissed. With respect to the remaining claim in this appeal, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20797 - Collier v. Adar Hartford Realty, LLC ("This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion for class certification. The plaintiffs, former residents of Barbour Gardens, a housing development in the city of Hartford (city), instituted this action in connection with the living conditions at Barbour Gardens during their residency. They sought compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees from the owner of Barbour Gardens and its property management company, and alleged various tort, contract, equitable, and statutory claims, including a claim of a violation of a provision of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110g. The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class on behalf 'of all persons who lived at Barbour Gardens for any or all of the time between June 24, 2004, and October 13, 2019,' which the trial court denied on the grounds that individualized issues would predominate over class-wide issues and that a class action is not a superior method to resolve the plaintiffs' claims. See Practice Book § 9-8 (3). In this appeal brought pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110h, the plaintiffs contend that there is sufficient evidence in the record common to the entire class to satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements. We reject this claim due to the lengthy period of time for which class certification was requested—covering all residents at Barbour Gardens at any time over a span of more than fifteen years—and the absence of generalized evidence in the record concerning the living conditions at Barbour Gardens during most of the proposed class period. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45890 - Iadanza v. Toor ("This appeal arises from a stipulated judgment in an action by the plaintiff landlord, Cosmo Iadanza, against the defendant tenant, Mohammed Toor, for breach of contract, serious nonpayment of rent, and fraudulent misrepresentation relative to the defendant's tenancy at the residential property known as 501 Woodbine Road in Stamford (property). According to the stipulation, judgment of possession entered in favor of the plaintiff 'with a final stay of execution based upon' several conditions pertaining to an option the defendant had to purchase the property. The conditions established, among other things, that the defendant would be able to purchase the property for $950,000, provided that he deposited 'with [his counsel] in trust pursuant to the terms of agreement the sum of $47,500 by August 26 [2022] [at] 4 p.m. eastern daylight time' and then satisfied certain conditions with respect to obtaining financing and closing by a date certain, and that time was of the essence 'for all actions and requirements in the stipulated agreement.' They further established that '[f]ailing to make the deposit will null and void the defendant's right to purchase the property, and the plaintiff may immediately file an affidavit stating this fact and immediately obtain a summary process execution for possession without any additional court hearings.'

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly ordered a summary process execution for possession to issue after the defendant failed to make the $47,500 deposit in accordance with the terms of the stipulated judgment. The defendant claims that the plaintiff materially breached the stipulated judgment prior to the August 26, 2022 deadline and that, consequently, the defendant's obligation to make the deposit by that time had been excused. As such, he maintains that the plaintiff was not entitled to the execution. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court ordering the summary process execution.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20927 - Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Fosberg ("When a consumer contract or lease includes a unilateral attorney's fees provision benefitting the commercial party, a consumer who successfully prosecutes or defends an action based on the contract is entitled as a matter of law to attorney's fees, and 'the size of the attorney's fee awarded to the consumer shall be based as far as practicable upon the terms governing the size of the fee for the commercial party.' General Statutes § 42-150bb. In this appeal, the plaintiff landlord, Centrix Management Co., LLC, challenges the trial court's award of reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $3500, following the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant tenant, Donald W. Fosberg. The plaintiff contends that, because doing so would be 'practicable' pursuant to § 42-150bb, the court had discretion to award the defendant only up to $750, which was the maximum amount of attorney's fees that the plaintiff could have recovered pursuant to the terms of the lease agreement. The defendant responds that the plaintiff's claim rests on an overly narrow construction of two key statutory terms in § 42-150bb, 'based . . . upon' and 'practicable.' Consistent with the equitable purpose of the statute, the defendant contends, the trial court had discretion to award him reasonable attorney's fees in excess of $750. Although we conclude that trial courts have discretion to award a prevailing consumer reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to § 42-150bb when the court determines that it is not practicable to base the award upon the contractual terms governing the commercial party's recovery, in the present case, the trial court did not make this threshold determination. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's award of attorney's fees and remand the case with direction to conduct a new hearing on the defendant's motion for attorney's fees consistent with this opinion.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20787 - Chabad Lubavitch of Western & Southern New England, Inc. v. Shemtov ("This appeal requires us to determine the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate before a Jewish rabbinical court called a 'Bais Din' to resolve a dispute between the parties concerning the possession of certain real property. The defendants Rabbi Moshe Shemtov, Chabad of Stamford, Inc., and Gan Yeladim of Stamford, Inc., appeal from the trial court's judgment granting possession of a commercial property to the plaintiff, Chabad Lubavitch of Western and Southern New England, Inc. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in failing to enforce an arbitration agreement that the plaintiff was bound by and refused to honor. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46943 - 914 North Colony, LLC v. 99 West, LLC ("The plaintiff, 914 North Colony, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its summary process action against the defendant, 99 West, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had reinstated the tenancy by accepting the defendant's tendered payments after service of the notice to quit, despite the fact that the notice to quit included a use and occupancy disclaimer. We disagree with the plaintiff's characterization of the court's judgment and conclude that the court properly found that the plaintiff's actions rendered the notice to quit equivocal, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the summary process action. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46250 - Edgewood Properties, LLC v. Dynamic Multimedia, LLC ("In this summary process action, the defendants, Daniel A. Martin, Dynamic Multimedia, LLC, and Badger Entertainment, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Edgewood Properties, LLC. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment of possession of the subject property based on lapse of time, (2) denied their motion in limine to present evidence of a purported settlement agreement reached by the parties, and (3) denied their motion for summary enforcement of the purported settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46885 - Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva ("In the underlying summary process eviction action (eviction action), the trial court rendered a judgment of possession against the defendant Leyla Makeeva and seven other defendants, in favor of the plaintiff, Altavista Investments, LLC. . . Baotou Capital, LLC (Baotou), which holds a note secured by a mortgage on residential property located at 969 North Street in Greenwich (property), the property at issue in the eviction action, filed the present appeal from the denial of its postjudgment motion to intervene on the basis of an ownership interest it claims in use and occupancy payments made by the defendants in lieu of bond during the pendency of the prior appeal. See General Statutes § 47a-35a (a). Baotou claims that the trial court improperly determined that, because it lacked any possessory interest in the property, it was not a proper party to the eviction action and, thus, also was not entitled to intervene in postjudgment proceedings pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-35b regarding the final distribution of the use and occupancy payments. We agree that the court improperly failed to permit Baotou to intervene as a matter of right and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions