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

ported by applicable law and [is] not supported by facts
         in the record.’’3 We are not persuaded.4
            We begin our analysis by setting forth the applicable
         standard of review and relevant legal principles regard-
         ing summary process. Whether the court properly con-
         cluded that the plaintiff reinstated the defendant’s ten-
         ancy through its course of conduct following the service
         of an unequivocal notice to quit ‘‘presents a mixed ques-
         tion of law and fact to which we apply plenary review.
         . . . We must therefore decide whether the court’s con-
         clusions are legally and logically correct and find sup-
         port in the facts that appear in the record.’’ (Internal
         quotation marks omitted.) Centrix Management Co.,
         LLC v. Valencia, 132 Conn. App. 582, 586–87, 33 A.3d
         802 (2011).
            3
              The plaintiff also claims that the court ‘‘erroneously found that [the]
         notice to quit was equivocal and thereafter improperly granted the defen-
         dant’s oral motion to dismiss because the plaintiff established its prima
         facie case’’ pursuant to Practice Book § 15-8. Although the plaintiff dedicates
         much of its brief to this point, we decline to address this claim because the
         basis for the judgment of dismissal, and the only issue before us in this
         appeal, is whether the notice to quit was made equivocal by the plaintiff’s
         actions. Whether the plaintiff established its prima facie case is a separate
         issue that the trial court did not address in its ruling.
            4
              We note that the defendant claims that this appeal is moot because the
         plaintiff failed ‘‘to challenge all of the factual findings and legal conclusions
         that led to the trial court granting [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss on
         the basis of equivocation of the notice to quit.’’ (Emphasis omitted.) The
         defendant argues that, because the plaintiff’s brief focuses solely on events
         from May 4 to 12, 2020, including payment of the April and May rent and
         conversations between the parties’ representatives, and does not address
         the other evidence on which the trial court relied, including the invoices
         that the plaintiff sent to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to challenge all
         the bases for the trial court’s decision. This argument fails. Although an
         appellant must challenge all the independent bases for a trial court’s adverse
         ruling to avoid rendering an appeal moot; see, e.g., State v. Marsala, 204
         Conn. App. 571, 575, 254 A.3d 358, cert. denied, 336 Conn. 951, 251 A.3d
         617 (2021); the late rent payments, the conversations between the parties’
         representatives, and the invoices are not independent bases for the court’s
         judgment. Rather, they are simply separate pieces of evidence that support
         the only basis for the court’s judgment—that is, that the plaintiff’s conduct
         rendered the notice to quit equivocal. Consequently, this appeal is not moot.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 7