Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Citation
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Parent Document
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1988-09-27
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7904487/visco-v-cody/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
Full Text
1,088 charsIn Alteri v. Layton, 35 Conn. Sup. 261, 408 A.2d 18 (1979), the trial court, in a well reasoned opinion, rejected the defendant tenant’s claim of retaliatory eviction, holding that the repair requested had to be one “required to conform a dwelling unit to basic structural, mechanical and housing code regulations . . . .” Id., 267, citing Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation, 463 F.2d 853, 865 (D.C. Cir. 1972); see also Friske v. Miranda, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain, Housing Session at New Britain, Docket No. SPN-7907-512-BE (September 11, 1979). The Alteri court reasoned that “[t]o enforce properly the statute in a meaningful manner requires a balancing of the interests of both landlord and tenant .... To accept the literal interpretation propounded by the defendant could effectively negate the summary process proceedings of Connecticut statutes. The legislature could not have intended, in such *453an indirect fashion, to emasculate substantially a landlord’s statutory right to the possession of his property.” Alteri v. Layton, supra, 267.