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

met its burden of showing that there has been nonpay-
         ment of rent in violation of the lease terms.’’ (Citations
         omitted.) Accordingly, the court rendered a judgment
         of possession in favor of the plaintiff. This appeal fol-
         lowed.
            On appeal, the defendants claim that the court
         improperly concluded that the plaintiff was not required
         to provide them with a pretermination notice and a ten
         day cure period prior to serving them with a notice to
         quit. Specifically, the defendants contend that the court
         incorrectly limited its analysis to the terms of the par-
         ties’ sublease agreement and that it should have consid-
         ered evidence of the parties’ course of performance (1)
         as evidence of the parties’ understanding or intended
         interpretation of the agreement, or (2) to find that the
         parties had modified the terms of their agreement
         through that course of performance.
           As an initial matter, we note that the court did not
         make any specific factual findings regarding whether
         the defendants had established a course of performance
         between the parties, and it did not explicitly address
         the defendants’ arguments related to the parties’ alleged
         course of performance.6 Nevertheless, in reaching its
         conclusion, the court necessarily rejected the defen-
         dants’ arguments concerning course of performance;
             6
               To the extent that the defendants contend that the court entirely failed
         to consider their arguments regarding the parties’ course of performance,
         we disagree. We do not presume error on the part of the trial court. See
         United Cleaning & Restoration, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., 225 Conn.
         App. 702, 713 n.7,       A.3d    (2024). In addition, at a hearing held on May
         2, 2023, to address the defendants’ counterclaim; see footnote 2 of this
         opinion; the court confirmed that it had considered the defendants’ argument
         regarding the parties’ course of performance. Specifically, the defendants’
         counsel told the court: ‘‘The only thing I was going to ask, Your Honor.
         . . . I think I know the answer, but I just wanted to make sure that the course
         of performance issues that were addressed in the hearing—the original
         hearing—were addressed by Your Honor when you made your decision on
         the merits of the motion. And I believe you did, Your Honor.’’ The court
         responded: ‘‘Yes.’’
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 7