§ 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

2,559 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 municipality’s lien, and,
yet, the municipality might have difficulty foreclosing
on the lien or suing on the landlord’s liability. In this
situation, the municipality and the landlord might be
forced to work with the landlord’s insurance company
or potential lenders to reach a solution that meets every-
one’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 legis-
lature’s prerogative to address and remedy any per-
ceived 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 legislation’’ 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