plaintiff asserted four counts in its complaint: two
counts of serious nuisance as to Blau, one count of
serious nuisance as to Boudreau, and one count of no
right or privilege to occupy the premises as to Bou-
dreau. The court granted a motion to strike the last
count of the summary process complaint, and a trial
was held on the three remaining counts on April 12,
2024. Ten days later, the court, Spader, J., issued a
memorandum of decision. It concluded that Blau’s con-
duct with respect to the towing company employees
and the attorney employed by the plaintiff would have
constituted a serious nuisance had it been done to
employees of the plaintiff or another tenant.4 Neverthe-
less, pursuant to the statutory language, a serious nui-
sance requires that the actions complained of be
directed at another tenant or the landlord. The court
further explained that, although Blau’s conduct was
‘‘indefensible . . . the incidents do not fit within the
statutory ‘serious nuisance’ framework.’’ The court,
therefore, did not address the third count of the sum-
mary process complaint directed at Boudreau, which
alleged that he had failed to require that Blau conduct
herself in a manner that did not constitute a serious
nuisance, or the defendants’ special defenses. It ren-
dered judgment in favor of the defendants.
4
Our Supreme Court has instructed that, to meet the statutory definition
of serious nuisance, the conduct at issue must be shown to be immediate
and serious. See Cardinal Realty Investors, LLC v. Bernasconi, 287 Conn.
136, 140, 946 A.2d 1242 (2008). We also note that decisions of the Superior
Court have stood for the proposition that a party alleging a serious nuisance
bears a ‘‘heavy burden’’ of demonstrating more than a mere nuisance or
material noncompliance with the duties of a tenant. Ansonia Acquisitions
I, LLC v. Jones, Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Docket No.
CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (August 29, 2023); see also Marion v. Fusco, Superior Court,
judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S
(March 18, 2021); Bates Woods Apartments v. Whitehead-Swain, Superior
Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (July
18, 2007).
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0