PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford, 350 Conn. 347 (2024)

Citation: PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford, 350 Conn. 347 (2024)
Parent Document: PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford, 350 Conn. 347 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-08-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10266509/ppc-realty-llc-v-hartford/ ↗

Full Text

2,548 chars

We recognize that this outcome results in a lien
          existing on the defendant’s land records that, in some
          circumstances, is potentially invalid if the plaintiff were
          to prevail on its § 8-270a defense and that the plaintiff
          must wait until it is sued by the defendant to assert
          this defense.5 But the legislature has made a clear policy
          decision to make landlords liable in the first instance
          for payments made by municipalities under the act, to
          permit municipalities to enforce this liability through
          a lien on the property and, finally, to permit a landlord to
          raise the affirmative defense only when the municipality
          brings an action against the landlord. See Adesokan v.
          Bloomfield, 347 Conn. 416, 446–47, 297 A.3d 983 (2023)
          (‘‘it is well established that ‘the primary responsibility
          for formulating public policy must remain with the legis-
          lature,’ ’’ and, ‘‘[o]nce the legislature has made its policy
          choice through statute, we are constrained to interpret
          the statutory language, not to decide on and implement
          our own policy choices’’). Nor can we conclude, as the
          trial court did, that our construction of these statutory
          provisions leads to an absurd or unworkable result.
          Concluding that a certain construction of statutory pro-
          visions is bizarre, absurd, or unworkable is strong medi-
          cine. See Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d
          699, 705–706 (2d Cir. 2019) (‘‘[A] statute is not absurd
          merely because it produces results that a court or liti-
          gant finds anomalous or perhaps unwise. To the con-
          trary, courts should look beyond a statute’s text under
          the canon against absurdity only [when] the result of
          applying the plain language would be, in a genuine
          sense, absurd, i.e., [when] it is quite impossible that
          Congress could have intended the result and [when]
          the alleged absurdity is so clear as to be obvious to
          most anyone.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). It
            5
              We offer no opinion on whether the plaintiff would prevail on a § 8-270a
          defense if the defendant were to enforce its lien on the plaintiff’s property
          in a civil action.
November 5, 2024               CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       Page 17

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text