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

2,310 chars

When determining whether a landlord’s conduct ren-
       dered a notice to quit equivocal, courts apply an objec-
       tive standard that evaluates whether the words and
       actions of the landlord ‘‘could create reasonable doubt
       in the mind of a reasonable tenant as to whether the
       lease, in fact, remained terminated.’’ Id., 589. In the
       present case, the facts are undisputed, and the court
       credited the testimony of DiNardo, the only witness
       who testified at trial. Accordingly, our review is limited
       to whether the court’s legal conclusion that the actions
       of the plaintiff created reasonable doubt in the mind
       of the defendant as to the status of its tenancy was
       legally and logically correct and finds support in the
       undisputed facts that appear in the record. Id., 586–87.
          ‘‘Summary process is a special statutory procedure
       designed to provide an expeditious remedy. . . . It
       enable[s] landlords to obtain possession of leased prem-
       ises without suffering the delay, loss and expense to
       which, under the common-law actions, they might be
       subjected by tenants wrongfully holding over their
       terms. . . . Service of a valid notice to quit, which ter-
       minates the lease and creates a tenancy at sufferance
       . . . is a condition precedent to a summary process
       action under [General Statutes] § 47a-23 that implicates
       the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction over that
       action.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal
       quotation marks omitted.) Waterbury Twin, LLC v.
       Renal Treatment Centers–Northeast, Inc., 292 Conn.
       459, 466, 974 A.2d 626 (2009). Due to the expeditious
       nature of summary process, the relevant statutes ‘‘must
       be narrowly construed and strictly followed.’’ (Internal
       quotation marks omitted.) Id. ‘‘The failure to comply
       with the statutory requirements deprives a court of
       jurisdiction to hear the summary process action.’’
       Bridgeport v. Barbour-Daniel Electronics, Inc., 16
       Conn. App. 574, 582, 548 A.2d 744, cert. denied, 209
       Conn. 826, 552 A.2d 432 (1988).
Page 8                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text