Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)

Citation: Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)
Parent Document: Freccia v. Freccia, 232 Conn. App. 353 (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-05-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10513133/freccia-v-freccia/ ↗

Full Text

2,360 chars

and have resided at the premises for decades, and that
         Frank had performed pursuant to the agreement. The
         defendants alleged that the plaintiff had breached the
         agreement by commencing this summary process
         action and that ‘‘[i]t would be against equity and good
         conscience to deprive the defendants . . . of the
         enforcement of the said agreement and life tenancy or
         estate.’’
            In the case underlying AC 46040, the plaintiff, in her
         capacity as executor of the estate of the decedent,
         alleged in count one that, on September 1, 2019, she
         had entered into a nine month lease with Frank, doing
         business as Freccia Brothers Auto Sales, for the use
         and occupancy of premises known as 246 West Putnam
         Avenue in Greenwich. The lease agreement set forth
         the monthly payment that became due on the first of
         each month, with the lease terminating on May 31, 2020.
         The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s right or privi-
         lege to occupy these premises was terminated by a
         notice to quit on August 14, 2021, which was duly served
         on the defendant, that notified the defendant that he
         was to quit possession on or before August 22, 2021.
         The defendant, however, continues in possession. The
         plaintiff alleged in count two that, on or after September
         1, 2019, the defendant also took possession of what she
         described as ‘‘[a]dditional [p]remises’’ at 246-248 West
         Putnam Avenue in Greenwich and that, although the
         defendant originally had a right or privilege to occupy
         these premises, such right or privilege had been termi-
         nated by the service of a notice to quit on August 14,
         2021, notifying the defendant to quit possession on or
         before August 22, 2021. The defendant, however, contin-
         ues in possession. In count three, the plaintiff alleged
         in the alternative that the defendant never had the right
         under the lease to occupy the additional premises.
            By way of special defenses, the defendant, first,
         alleged that the plaintiff failed to satisfy an agreement
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 7

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text