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

surrounding the parties at the execution of the instru-
       ment; (2) the language must be given its ordinary mean-
       ing unless a technical or special meaning is clearly
       intended; (3) the lease must be construed as a whole
       and in such a manner as to give effect to every provision,
       if reasonably possible. . . . A determination of con-
       tractual intent ordinarily presents a question of fact for
       the ultimate fact finder, although where the language
       is clear and unambiguous, it becomes a question of
       law for the court.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
       Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 199 Conn. App. 312,
       323, 235 A.3d 674, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 969, 240 A.3d
       285 (2020); see also Raczkowski v. McFarlane, 195
       Conn. App. 402, 409, 225 A.3d 305 (2020) (‘‘when a
       contract is unambiguous within its four corners . . .
       the interpretation of it is a question of law for this
       court’’).
          The question, then, is whether paragraph 10 (A) is
       ambiguous. ‘‘[T]he intent of the parties is to be ascer-
       tained by a fair and reasonable construction of the
       written words and . . . the language used must be
       accorded its common, natural, and ordinary meaning
       and usage where it can be sensibly applied to the subject
       matter of the [writing]. . . . Where the language of the
       [writing] is clear and unambiguous, the [writing] is to
       be given effect according to its terms. A court will not
       torture words to import ambiguity where the ordinary
       meaning leaves no room for ambiguity . . . . Similarly,
       any ambiguity in a [written instrument] must emanate
       from the language used in the [writing] rather than
       from one party’s subjective perception of the terms.’’
       (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut
       National Bank v. Rehab Associates, 300 Conn. 314, 319,
       12 A.3d 995 (2011). Further, ‘‘in construing contracts,
       we give effect to all the language included therein, as
       the law of contract interpretation . . . militates
       against interpreting a contract in a way that renders a
Page 8                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                    0, 0