Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text

2,640 chars
ing, notify the tenant that the tenant must quit posses-
          sion or occupancy of the premises on a specified date,
          include the address of the property, and state the reason
          or reasons for the notice to quit possession or occu-
          pancy using the statutory language or words of similar
          import. General Statutes § 47a-23 (b).
             ‘‘It follows that, for purposes of determining whether
          it had subject matter jurisdiction over [a] . . . sum-
          mary process action, [a trial] court . . . need[s] to
          determine only whether the notice to quit issued by [a]
          plaintiff complied with § 47a-23. . . .
            ‘‘[T]o establish subject matter jurisdiction, the court
          must determine that it has the power to hear the general
          class [of cases] to which the proceedings in question
          belong.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal
          quotation marks omitted.) Housing Authority v. Ste-
          vens, 209 Conn. App. 569, 577–79, 267 A.3d 927, cert.
          denied, 343 Conn. 907, 273 A.3d 234 (2022).
             Ordinarily, ‘‘[o]nly in [the] most exceptional circum-
          stances can and will [an appellate] court consider a
          claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been
          raised and decided in the trial court. . . . A claim that
          a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, however, may
          be raised at any time during the proceedings, including
          for the first time on appeal.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote
          omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mangiafico
          v. Farmington, 331 Conn. 404, 429–30, 204 A.3d 1138
          (2019). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the
          defendants’ claim is not reviewable.
            Second, we turn to the merits of the claim, which,
          consistent with the principles set forth previously in
          this opinion, may be distilled to the issue of whether
          the plaintiff strictly complied with § 47a-23.14 We are
             14
                General Statutes § 47a-23 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) When the owner
          or lessor, or the owner’s or lessor’s legal representative, or the owner’s or
          lessor’s attorney-at-law, or in-fact, desires to obtain possession or occupancy
          of any land or building, any apartment in any building, any dwelling unit,
          any trailer, or any land upon which a trailer is used or stands, and (1) when
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 31