vided no more than a conclusory statement in this
regard, unaccompanied by any legal authority, we
decline to address this argument. See MacDermid, Inc.
v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726, 748, 183 A.3d 611 (2018)
(actual analysis, not mere assertions, is required for
briefing to be adequate).
Moreover, the unambiguous language of the lease
agreement provided notice to the defendant that his
failure to pay his rent on the first of each month or
within nine days thereafter would constitute a default
of the agreement and that, ‘‘if [his] rent [was] delinquent,
[he] immediately forfeit[ed] all rights to occupy the
apartment any longer . . . .’’ That language clearly
indicates that, outside of the nine day grace period,
there is no right to cure once a tenant defaults on his
rent obligation. See Gateway Development/East Lyme,
LLC v. Duong, supra, 227 Conn. App. 47–48 (plain and
unambiguous language of sublease agreement made
clear that pretermination notice and cure period were
not required in context of default for nonpayment of
rent where agreement provided that, ‘‘if the defendants
fail to pay rent within ten days after it is due, the plaintiff
may ‘immediately initiate’ legal action to recover pos-
session of the premises, ‘without prior notice’ to the
defendants’’). We therefore conclude that the defen-
dant’s argument that he had a right to cure his nonpay-
ment of rent is unavailing.10
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
10
The defendant argues in his reply brief that the provision of General
Statutes § 47a-23 that requires a landlord to give a defaulting tenant three
days notice in the notice to quit must be read to mean that ‘‘the time
between the service of the notice [to quit] and the quit date is the mandatory
reasonable time to cure said breach.’’ Not only does this court not consider
claims made for the first time in a reply brief; see Lewis v. Commissioner
of Correction, 211 Conn. App. 77, 101, 271 A.3d 1058 (arguments cannot be
raised for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 343 Conn. 924, 275 A.3d
1213, cert. denied sub nom. Lewis v. Quiros, U.S. , 143 S. Ct. 335,
214 L. Ed. 2d 150 (2022); but this argument has no basis in the law.