§ 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

2,418 chars

Avenue in Hartford, which was improved with a three
story apartment building with forty residential units.
On March 7, 2019, at approximately 7:18 a.m., a third
party started a fire on the second floor of the apartment
building. Both parties have stipulated that the fire was
not the fault of the plaintiff or any apartment resident.
The third party was later convicted of arson for starting
this fire.
The ensuing blaze caused water, smoke, and fire dam-
age, rendering the apartment units uninhabitable imme-
diately and for the foreseeable future. Less than one
hour later, at approximately 8 a.m. that same day, the
defendant provided the plaintiff with a ‘‘Notice Viola-
tion/Emergency and Order to Abate,’’ which stated that
the defendant was condemning the property and order-
ing all residents to vacate their units until the apartment
building was repaired. The defendant placed a placard
on the plaintiff’s property declaring the building ‘‘[u]nfit
for [h]uman [o]ccupancy.’’ At the time of the fire, resi-
dents occupied thirty-nine of the building’s forty apart-
ment units. Important to the dispute before us, the
defendant provided shelter and relocation services to
all residents who lived in these units. The plaintiff does
not contest the necessity of the defendant’s actions in
response to this emergency.
The day after the fire, the defendant filed a lien on
the plaintiff’s property pursuant to General Statutes
§§ 8-268 and 8-270. The lien provided that it was ‘‘for
all reimbursable relocation assistance expenses, includ-
ing, if any, but not limited to, ongoing expenses for
temporary housing (hotel rental fees), moving, storage
and insurance of personal property, and replacement
housing made by the [defendant] to or on . . . behalf
[of] certain tenants displaced from said [p]remises due
to violation(s) of the [c]ity of Hartford [h]ousing,
[b]uilding, [h]ealth, and/or [f]ire [c]odes.’’ The defen-
dant later filed an updated lien, specifying that the relo-
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text