§ 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

2,377 chars

the building was ‘‘[u]nfit for [h]uman [o]ccupancy.’’
Once the defendant issued that order, the residents
became displaced as a ‘‘direct result of code enforce-
ment activities’’ under § 8-267 (3) (B). This is the most
sensible reading in light of the legislatively declared
purpose of the act, which includes ‘‘establish[ing] a uni-
form policy for the fair and equitable treatment of per-
sons displaced . . . by building code enforcement
activities . . . .’’ General Statutes § 8-266. Even though
the arson destroyed the property, there was some dan-
ger that residents of the building would seek to return
if they had no other place for shelter. It was the defen-
dant’s code enforcement that directly resulted in the
displacement of the tenants.
Although damage from the fire made the apartment
building uninhabitable physically and legally, those two
determinations are not always necessarily one and the
same. For example, the existence of mold growing in
an apartment building might make the building legally
uninhabitable; see General Statutes § 47a-7; but may go
unnoticed by residents who might choose to stay in the
building despite the health risk because they have no
other shelter options. In this scenario, too, it would not
be the underlying cause behind the code violation (the
mold) that prompted residents to move. Rather, if the
defendant, in enforcing its code, ordered that residents
could not occupy the building, the residents would be
displaced as a ‘‘direct result’’ of the code enforcement.
General Statutes § 8-267 (3) (B). This reality underscores
the shortcomings of the plaintiff’s logic and further
supports an interpretation of § 8-267 (3) (B) that consid-
ers only code enforcement activities when determining
the cause of displacement under the act.
Thus, we disagree with the trial court that the resi-
dents ‘‘move[d]’’ from the building ‘‘as the direct result
of’’ arson, not ‘‘as the direct result of [the defendant’s] code
enforcement activities . . . .’’ General Statutes § 8-267
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text