the court declined to consider the motion due to its
untimeliness.
The court then proceeded on the trial of the matter,
at which the plaintiff introduced the testimony of its
property manager, Young, and its maintenance man-
ager, Eliyahu Katz.4 The defendant testified on his
own behalf.
On June 3, 2024, the court issued a memorandum of
decision concluding that the plaintiff had proven the
allegations of its complaint and rejecting the defen-
dant’s special defenses. As to his defense that he had
the right to cure, and did cure, his nonpayment by
sending payments for the outstanding rent to the plain-
tiff prior to the quit date, the court found that, pursuant
to the lease agreement, the plaintiff was required to
allow the defendant an opportunity to cure his nonpay-
ments within nine days after the beginning of each
month when his portion of the rent became due. The
court further found that, ‘‘[o]nce the notice to quit,
which stated that any future payments would be for
use and occupancy only, was served, however, the
defendant’s opportunity to cure was extinguished.’’ As
to the defendant’s second special defense of equitable
nonforfeiture, the court found that the defendant did
not act with clean hands and therefore that his nonpay-
ment of rent was wilful. The court therefore rendered
judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff but
stayed the execution of the judgment through July 31,
motions that could have been heard and at least considered, and [the]
plaintiff’s counsel could have had an opportunity to review them and respond
to them or at least be able to say something today before trial started, but
we’re here right now. It is almost three o’clock on the day of trial.’’
The court concluded: ‘‘I mean, you had an opportunity, you knew that it
was a possibility that your motion for summary judgment could be denied
and that you were potentially going to go to trial today . . . and you chose
not to file your motion to preclude. So, I’m not going to consider that at
this time.’’
4
Katz also was a principal of the plaintiff.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9