914 North Colony, LLC v. 99 West, LLC, 226 Conn. App. 720 (2024)

Citation: 914 North Colony, LLC v. 99 West, LLC, 226 Conn. App. 720 (2024)
Parent Document: 914 North Colony, LLC v. 99 West, LLC, 226 Conn. App. 720 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-07-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131828/914-north-colony-llc-v-99-west-llc/ ↗

Full Text

2,248 chars

letter. After the defendant did not pay the base rent
       when due on April 19, 2020, the plaintiff served the
       defendant with a notice to quit for nonpayment of rent
       on May 4, 2020, directing the defendant to vacate the
       premises on or before May 12, 2020. The notice to quit
       included a disclaimer stating that ‘‘[a]ny payments ten-
       dered after the service of this notice to quit will be
       accepted as use and occupancy only and not as rent,
       with full reservation of rights to continue the eviction
       action.’’
         On May 8, 2020, the defendant tendered $16,156.68
       for the April and May base rent, which the plaintiff
       received on May 11, 2020, one day prior to the quit date
       on the notice. Shortly after this payment, Peter DiNardo,
       a representative of the plaintiff, and Chad Corrigan, a
       representative of the defendant, discussed the status
       of the lease. At trial, DiNardo testified that, during this
       conversation, he stated, ‘‘[Y]ou will not be reinstated
       on your lease. The lease is terminated.’’ On May 12, 2020,
       DiNardo emailed Corrigan an offering memorandum
       for an adjacent property to demonstrate that the defen-
       dant’s base rent was lower than the market rate. The
       offering memorandum included a lease summary that
       reflected a base rent for the adjacent property that was
       more than double the amount of the defendant’s base
       rent. Over the next few months, DiNardo and Corrigan
       continued to have discussions regarding the defendant’s
       tenancy at the premises, and DiNardo testified that, at
       some point, he offered to let the defendant stay at the
       premises under a new lease agreement with a higher
       base rent. DiNardo also explained that the plaintiff com-
       menced this action seeking to recover possession of
       the premises in October, 2020, only when it became
       apparent that the defendant would not agree to a
       new lease.
         During the months when discussions were taking
       place between DiNardo and Corrigan, as well as after
Page 4                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text