Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon, 230 Conn. App. 424 (2025)

Citation
Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon, 230 Conn. App. 424 (2025)
Parent Document
Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon, 230 Conn. App. 424 (2025)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2025-01-28

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text

2,802 chars
renew and that the plaintiff was providing ‘‘the required
         written notice to vacate the premises as stated in your
         current [l]ease.’’ The defendant did not vacate. The
         plaintiff then commenced a summary process action
         (first action) against the defendant, alleging, inter alia,
         lapse of time, with return of service on April 9, 2022.
         The defendant filed an answer and a special defense
         pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-23c.3 The first action
         concluded on May 26, 2022, when the court rendered
         a judgment of possession in favor of the defendant,
         who the court found had proved her special defense that
         she is entitled to the protections provided by § 47a-23c.
             On December 27, 2022, the plaintiff sent the defen-
         dant a letter notifying her that it would be increasing
         her rent to $1300 per month, effective February 1, 2023.
         Since the inception of the lease in 2012, the defendant
         has continued to pay the same rental amount of $1200
         per month without increase. This letter also apprised
         the defendant that a previous notice to quit from
         November, 2022, was ‘‘rescinded and no longer has any
         legal effect.’’4 It went on to notify the defendant that
         ‘‘[t]his notice is to advise you that you are in violation of
         your lease and/or rental agreement and your obligations
             3
              General Statutes § 47a-23c prohibits eviction of certain tenants with
         physical or mental disability except for good cause, which is defined in
         subdivision (b) (1). Although the court found, in the first action, that the
         term of the lease had terminated, the court also determined that, because
         the defendant is protected by statute, she could not be evicted for lapse
         of time.
            4
              The November 17, 2022 notice to quit read, in substance, as follows: ‘‘I
         hereby give notice that you are to quit possession or occupancy of the
         premises described above and now occupied by you on or before November
         27, 2022 for the following reasons:
            ‘‘(1) Nonpayment of rent.
            ‘‘(2) Although you previously had a right or privilege to occupy the prem-
         ises, said right or privilege has terminated.
            ‘‘Any payments tendered after service of this Notice shall be accepted as
         ‘USE and OCCUPANCY’ and NOT as rent. You may be evicted only if the
         landlord brings a judicial action against you and in said action you may
         present a defense.’’ (Emphasis in original.)
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 3