The plaintiff housing authority sought, by way of summary process, to regain
possession of certain premises leased to the defendant tenant. The
plaintiff served on the defendant a notice to quit possession of the
premises alleging that the defendant’s conduct constituted a serious
nuisance under the applicable statute (§ 47a-15 (B) and (C)). Thereafter,
the plaintiff commenced this summary process action by serving on the
defendant a summons and complaint. The defendant filed an answer
and special defenses alleging, among other things, that he was entitled
to an accommodation because of his psychiatric disability. Subsequently,
the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion because the plaintiff had not issued a pretermination notice. The
trial court rendered judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff on
the basis of the defendant’s violation of § 47a-15 (C) and denied the
defendant’s motion to dismiss, from which the defendant appealed to
this court. Held:
1. The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over this summary process
action: the notice to quit issued by the plaintiff, which complied with
statutory requirements (§ 47a-23), provided the court with jurisdiction
over the plaintiff’s claims; moreover, given that the plaintiff alleged that
the defendant’s conduct constituted a serious nuisance, the plain and
unambiguous language of § 47a-15 made clear that the plaintiff was
not required to serve a pretermination notice on the defendant, and,
therefore, the lack thereof did not deprive the court of subject matter
jurisdiction; furthermore, the court did not need to reach the merits of
whether the defendant’s conduct did, in fact, constitute a serious nui-
sance in order to exercise jurisdiction over this action.
2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the court improperly
rendered judgment for the plaintiff because his acts or omissions did
not constitute a serious nuisance within the meaning of § 47a-15 (C):
although the defendant claimed that the court’s decision relied on a
subordinate, erroneous finding that the defendant had harassed another
resident, the court did not make that finding and, instead, made clear
that its decision in favor of the plaintiff was based on the condition of
the defendant’s apartment; moreover, the record supported the court’s
conclusion that the condition of the defendant’s apartment constituted
a serious nuisance because it presented an immediate and serious danger
to the safety of the other tenants.
3. The defendant’s claims that the trial court made clearly erroneous factual
findings regarding whether the plaintiff reasonably accommodated him
and that the court’s findings were the result of implicit bias were not
reviewable, the defendant having failed to brief the claims adequately:
the defendant’s briefs before this court were completely devoid of any
legal analysis, as his argument mostly restated portions of the record,
without providing any context or explanation of how those facts sup-
ported or related to his legal claims; moreover, the defendant failed to
explain why either of the two authorities that he cited, an Iowa criminal
case and an American Bar Association publication, were instructive in
light of the facts of this case, or how the specific findings he challenged
were relevant to the court’s judgment.
Argued September 21, 2021—officially released January 4, 2022 Procedural History