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

under Connecticut law . . . .’’ The pretermination
       notice, provided pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-15,
       accused the defendant of nuisance causing conduct and
       claimed that the defendant owed the plaintiff $500 for
       ‘‘marshal and legal fees incurred to enforce your lease.’’
       The letter contained the further proviso that, ‘‘[i]f these
       conditions are not corrected within the time frame indi-
       cated, your lease will terminate on the sixteenth day
       after you receive this letter.’’ On May 25, 2023, the plain-
       tiff served another notice to quit upon the defendant,
       citing the violation of lease terms, nonpayment of rent,
       failure to remedy a nuisance, and refusal to agree to a
       fair and equitable rent increase. The defendant never-
       theless retained possession of the premises at all rele-
       vant times and refused to vacate.
          The plaintiff then commenced the present action on
       May 30, 2023. In its summary process complaint, the
       plaintiff alleged five counts: (1) nonpayment of rent;
       (2) refusal to agree to a fair and equitable rent increase;
       (3) nuisance; (4) violation of the terms of the lease; and
       (5) right or privilege to occupy terminated. From the
       outset, the plaintiff argued that, in the first action, the
       trial court held that the term of the lease had ‘‘in fact
       terminated.’’5 The plaintiff further noted that, since the
       inception of the lease in 2012, the defendant has contin-
       ued to pay the same rental amount of $1200 ‘‘without
       increase.’’
         In her answer, the defendant claimed to have a ‘‘cur-
       rent lease’’ and, citing paragraph 10 (A) of the lease,
       asserted that it provides for automatic renewal. The
         5
           The plaintiff attached to its complaint a copy of the original lease for
       the premises; the original notice of lease nonrenewal, dated September 19,
       2021; the court’s order in the first action, dated May 26, 2022; the plaintiff’s
       December 27, 2022 pretermination notice to the defendant; the final notice
       to quit, dated May 25, 2023; the return of service documentation dated May
       30, 2023; and a handwritten letter by the plaintiff to the defendant advising
       her that her brother must vacate the premises under the terms of the lease.
Page 4                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       0, 0