Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Seramonte CT, LLC v. Blau (2025)

Citation
Seramonte CT, LLC v. Blau (2025)
Parent Document
Seramonte CT, LLC v. Blau (2025)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2025-12-23

Full Text

2,479 chars
however, a pretermination notice is not required.’’
       (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 575–76; see also
       Towers v. Kelly, 199 Conn. App. 829, 837, 238 A.3d 732,
       cert. denied, 335 Conn. 966, 240 A.3d 281 (2020); see
       generally Bridgestone Realty Corp. v. Mendoza, 50
       Conn. Supp. 125, 128, 918 A.2d 1064 (2006) (§ 47a-15
       exempts landlords from serving pretermination notice
       where tenant commits serious nuisance).
          A serious nuisance under this statutory scheme may
       occur in one of four ways. See Suburban Greater Hart-
       ford Realty Management Corp. v. Edwards, 123 Conn.
       App. 295, 300, 1 A.3d 1138 (2010). As provided in § 47a-
       15, serious nuisance means ‘‘[1] inflicting bodily harm
       upon another tenant or the landlord or threatening to
       inflict such harm with the present ability to effect the
       harm and under circumstances which would lead a
       reasonable person to believe that such threat will be
       carried out, [2] substantial and wilful destruction of
       part of the dwelling unit or premises, [3] conduct which
       presents an immediate and serious danger to the safety
       of other tenants or the landlord, or [4] using the prem-
       ises or allowing the premises to be used for prostitution
       or the illegal sale of drugs or, in the case of a housing
       authority, using any area within fifteen hundred feet
       of any housing authority property in which the tenant
       resides for the illegal sale of drugs.’’
         In the present case, the plaintiff claimed that Blau’s
       conduct toward the plaintiff’s attorney and its towing
       contractor constituted a serious nuisance and that Bou-
       dreau, in failing to require Blau to conduct herself in
       a manner that did not constitute a serious nuisance,
       committed a serious nuisance in violation of § 47a-11
       (g).8 The plaintiff’s attempt to regain possession of the
          8
            General Statutes § 47a-11 provides in relevant part that ‘‘[a] tenant shall
       . . . (g) conduct himself and require other persons on the premises with
       his consent to conduct themselves in a manner that will not disturb his
       neighbors’ peaceful enjoyment of the premises or constitute . . . a serious
       nuisance, as defined in section 47a-15 . . . .’’
Page 10                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0