§ 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

2,442 chars

marks omitted.) Gilmore v. Pawn King, Inc., 313 Conn.
         535, 542–43, 98 A.3d 808 (2014).
            In our view, § 8-267 (3) (B) unambiguously provides
         that it was the defendant’s enforcement of building codes
         that triggered the act’s protections. A plain reading of
         § 8-267 (3) (B) reveals that a displaced person is one
         ‘‘who . . . moves as the direct result of code enforce-
         ment activities . . . .’’ As this court has previously rec-
         ognized when considering who is a ‘‘displaced person’’
         under the act, there will always be an underlying cause
         that initially brought about the need for building code
         enforcement. See Dukes v. Durante, 192 Conn. 207, 221,
         471 A.2d 1368 (1984) (‘‘[w]hether condemnation results
         from burst pipes or falling ceilings, the result is an
         unsound structure’’). We do not read this definitional
         statute to concern itself with the specific root cause of
         how a building became uninhabitable. Any number of
         reasons might lead a municipality to exercise its police
         powers to protect its citizenry by ordering residents
         to move out of a building, rendering them ‘‘displaced
         persons’’ for purposes of the act. See id. (‘‘[i]ndeed, in
         those buildings where displacement is necessary, the
         nomenclature of the violations is irrelevant’’). The act’s
         definition of ‘‘displaced person’’ does not concern itself
         with fault but instead focuses on the status of the ten-
         ants. These clear, threshold determinations do not require
         further inquiry into why unhabitable conditions came
         to displace the building’s residents.
            As applied to the present case, it is undisputed that
         a third party’s arson left the plaintiff’s property in a state
         that violated the defendant’s building codes. Indeed, the
         plaintiff acknowledges that the defendant’s emergency
         intervention was necessary in the aftermath of the fire.
         It is also undisputed that less than one hour after the
         fire occurred, the defendant issued a document titled
         ‘‘Notice Violation/Emergency and Order to Abate,’’ which
         instructed all residents to vacate their units because
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                           Page 7

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text