Connelly v. Housing Authority of New Haven, 213 Conn. 354 (1990)

Citation: Connelly v. Housing Authority of New Haven, 213 Conn. 354 (1990)
Parent Document: Connelly v. Housing Authority of New Haven, 213 Conn. 354 (1990)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1990-01-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7893844/connelly-v-housing-authority-of... ↗

Full Text

1,169 chars

In the present case, the “transactions or actions otherwise permitted under law” are the continued leasing or renting of subsidized apartments to low income tenants.7 In Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484, 491, 464 A.2d 847 (1983), we ruled that the leasing or renting of apartment or dwelling units fell within the purview of CUTPA. See also Daddona v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 209 Conn. 243, 255, 258-59, 550 A.2d 1061 (1988); Eamiello v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 208 Conn. 620, 648, 652-56, 546 A.2d 805 (1988). In the present case, however, the actions of the defendant, a creature of statute, are expressly authorized and pervasively regulated by both the state department of housing and HUD. As such, the plain language of § 42-110c exempts the leasing or renting of apartments by the defendant from CUTPA scrutiny. Clear and unequivocal statutes cannot be extended beyond their plain meaning. See General Statutes § 1-1 (a); Ganim v. Roberts, 204 Conn. 760, 763, 529 A.2d 194 (1987); State v. Pellegrino, 194 Conn. 279, 284, 480 A.2d 537 (1984); Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co., 193 Conn. 208, 231, 477 A.2d 988 (1984).

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text