§ 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

2,235 chars

to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the case to
       this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and
       Practice Book § 65-1.
          The defendant raises only one issue on appeal:
       whether, under the act, it properly filed a lien on the
       plaintiff’s property as a means of facilitating the recov-
       ery of costs from the plaintiff that the defendant
       incurred for relocating residents displaced following
       the defendant’s enforcement of building codes, even if it
       was not the plaintiff’s actions that rendered the building
       uninhabitable. To answer this question, we first con-
       sider whether the plaintiff’s tenants fell under the act’s
       definition of ‘‘displaced persons.’’ See General Statutes
       § 8-267 (3). Because we conclude that the plaintiff’s
       tenants indeed constituted displaced persons under the
       act, we must analyze whether, in response to the defen-
       dant’s lien, the plaintiff can raise its claim that it did
       not cause the property damage that resulted in the
       tenants’ displacement.
                                     I
          The first question we must resolve is whether the
       plaintiff’s tenants were ‘‘displaced persons,’’ as contem-
       plated by § 8-267 (3) (B), which defines a ‘‘displaced
       person’’ in relevant part as ‘‘any person who so moves
       as the direct result of code enforcement activities
       . . . .’’ The parties’ dispute centers on whether the
       plaintiff’s tenants constituted displaced persons under
       the act, even though the fire was not the plaintiff’s fault.
       The defendant argues that the trial court erred because
       the relocation assistance that a city provides and a
       landlord is liable for under the act ‘‘does not turn on
       what started the causal chain that ultimately led to the
       residents’ displacement’’ but focuses on whether a city
       had to engage in code enforcement activities. The plain-
       tiff responds that the trial court properly recognized
       that the act does not apply to the present case because
Page 6                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text