§ 1-2z

Citation: § 1-2z
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

2,563 chars

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
is not difficult to recognize that the act’s framework
works a balance. In the event that a landlord arguably
is not at fault for the displacement of residents from
its building, it might not be able to discharge the munici-
pality’s lien, and, yet, the municipality might have diffi-
culty foreclosing on the lien or suing on the landlord’s
liability. In this situation, the municipality and the land-
lord might be forced to work with the landlord’s insur-
ance company or potential lenders to reach a solution
that meets everyone’s interests: the landlord in
reopening a revenue stream from its investment, and
the municipality in recovering some of its costs and
returning housing stock to the market, with all of the
economic and social benefits that flow from such a
resolution. It is the legislature’s prerogative to address
and remedy any perceived inconsistency. See, e.g.,
Trinity Christian School v. Commission on Human
Rights & Opportunities, 329 Conn. 684, 698 n.18, 189
A.3d 79 (2018) (‘‘[o]f course, as in all cases involving
the construction of a statute, if the legislature disagrees
with our interpretation . . . it is free to enact legisla-
tion’’ to the contrary). We cannot conclude that the
statutes as they exist are either bizarre or unworkable;
nor will we import language that we think might make
the statutes more workable, or even more rational.6
6
The legislative history of §§ 8-268, 8-270 and 8-270a manifests the concern
of some legislators about saddling landlords with relocation costs for dis-
Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text