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

2,346 chars

contingent; unconditional; absolute. Black’s Law Dic-
tionary (9th Ed. 2009) p. 1699.
‘‘Where a plaintiff issuing a notice to quit is not the
owner of the property when the notice to quit is served,
the notice to quit is defective, which deprives the court
of subject matter jurisdiction. Before the [trial] court
can entertain a summary process action and evict a
tenant, the owner of the land must previously have
served the tenant with notice to quit. . . . As a condi-
tion precedent to a summary process action, proper
notice to quit [pursuant to § 47a-23] is a jurisdictional
necessity.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; inter-
nal quotation marks omitted.) Success, Inc. v. Curcio,
160 Conn. App. 153, 159–61, 124 A.3d 563, cert. denied,
319 Conn. 952, 125 A.3d 531 (2015).
‘‘Standing . . . is a practical concept designed to
ensure that courts and parties are not vexed by suits
brought to vindicate nonjusticiable interests and that
judicial decisions which may affect the rights of others
are forged in hot controversy, with each view fairly and
vigorously represented. . . . These two objectives are
ordinarily held to have been met when a complainant
makes a colorable claim of direct injury he has suffered
or is likely to suffer, in an individual or representative
capacity. Such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy . . . provides the requisite assurance of
concrete adverseness and diligent advocacy. . . .
Where a party is found to lack standing, the court is
consequently without subject matter jurisdiction to
determine the cause.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quo-
tation marks omitted.) North Branford Citizens Against
Bulk Propane Storage v. North Branford, 230 Conn.
App. 335, 342–43, 330 A.3d 196 (2025). ‘‘The general rule
is that one party has no standing to raise another’s
rights. . . . When standing is put in issue, the question
is whether the person whose standing is challenged is
a proper party to request an adjudication of the issue
Page 16 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text