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

1,791 chars

The plaintiff’s reliance on Cheshire Land Trust, LLC,
       is misplaced. In its attempt to analogize the facts in the
       present case to those in Cheshire Land Trust, LLC, the
       plaintiff focuses on DiNardo’s statement to Corrigan
       that the lease was terminated and would not be rein-
       stated. When viewed in the context of all the subsequent
       actions by the plaintiff, however, this statement is not
       the same unequivocal ultimatum given in Cheshire
       Land Trust, LLC. The subsequent communications fol-
       lowing the ultimatum in Cheshire Land Trust, LLC,
       were not inconsistent with the termination of the lease;
       rather, they reinforced the inevitability of an eviction
       action in the absence of an agreement. In the present
       case, in contrast, the plaintiff’s actions following
       DiNardo’s statement, namely, continuing to charge the
       defendant for obligations that arose only under the lease
       separately from the charges for ‘‘Use & Occupancy’’
       and sending numerous invoices for ‘‘Rent’’ between May
       20, 2020, and July 21, 2022, were inconsistent with a
       ‘‘clear intention to terminate the lease and to proceed
       with judicial process to secure possession.’’ (Internal
       quotation marks omitted.) Centrix Management Co.,
       LLC v. Valencia, supra, 132 Conn. App. 589. As in Cen-
       trix Management Co., LLC, the plaintiff’s conduct, not
       only over the more than five months between the notice
       to quit and the commencement of the summary process
       action but also during the almost three years that the
       action was pending, created uncertainty as to whether
Page 16                     CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text