Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC v. Duong, 227 Conn. App. 38 (2024)

Citation: Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC v. Duong, 227 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
Parent Document: Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC v. Duong, 227 Conn. App. 38 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-07-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131818/gateway-developmenteast-lyme-l... ↗

Full Text

2,438 chars

in January, 2019. She also testified that she typically
         sent the defendants a ‘‘notice of default’’ with a ten day
         right to cure such default, and she would routinely
         accept the late payments that followed. She explained
         that the plaintiff would ‘‘try to be as accommodating
         to [its] tenants as possible,’’ which is why she typically
         provided a notice of default with a cure period, regard-
         less of whether it was required under the lease. When
         the defendants failed to pay their November, 2022 rent
         in a timely fashion, King sent the notice of cancellation
         and issued the notice to quit, rather than providing a
         notice of default with a cure period, because ‘‘[p]atience
         ha[d] been worn way too thin.’’ King further testified
         as to her understanding of what was required under
         the terms of the lease. Specifically, she testified that,
         pursuant to paragraph 21 of the sublease agreement,3
         a pretermination notice was not required when the
         claimed default was the nonpayment of rent. Instead,
         a notice of default with a ten day cure period was
         required with respect to the other events of default
         listed in the lease.4
           The defendants presented testimony from Peter Tran,
         who had a personal relationship with Duong. Tran han-
         dled communications with King about the lease on
         behalf of Duong. Tran testified that the plaintiff
         accepted many late rental payments from the defen-
         dants after providing them with a ten day period to
         cure their default and, on the basis of the notices of
         default they previously had received, he believed the
         defendants had a right to cure under the terms of the
         lease. The defendants also submitted documentary evi-
         dence to the court, including two letters sent from King
         to Duong dated May 11, 2020, and October 31, 2022.
             3
              The language of paragraph 21 of the sublease agreement is set forth
         previously in this opinion.
            4
              Subsections (a) through (f) of paragraph 21 of the sublease agreement
         list various events that constitute defaults under the lease.
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 5

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text