Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Citation
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Parent Document
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2020-09-30
Other Sections in This Document (50)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
Full Text
2,743 charsnot been addressed. The inspector had a conversation
with Dominick, during which Dominick stated that he
would hire a contractor to test the tank and piping for
corrosion protection. The inspector informed Dominick
that the tank was in ‘‘temporary closure status’’ until
it was either brought into compliance or permanently
removed. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The
inspector cited six ‘‘potential violations’’ on the basis
of his findings.
On April 27, 2011, the plaintiffs hired Absolute Tank
Testing, Inc. (Absolute Tank), to conduct a cathodic
protection test of the 2000 gallon tank. Absolute Tank
subsequently sent a letter to Dominick on May 1, 2011,
advising him that the tank had ‘‘passed’’ the test but
that the lines connected to the tank had ‘‘fail[ed]’’ the
test. Absolute Tank recommended that the plaintiffs
retain a cathodic protection engineer to confirm the
readings and make recommendations accordingly. On
October 31, 2011, Dominick received a second letter
from Absolute Tank advising him that soil samples
taken from the area surrounding the 2000 gallon tank
contained ‘‘detectable concentrations of [Extractable
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons at] 540 parts per mil-
lion’’ and that DEEP had been notified.3
In March, 2013, Giuseppe Boccanfuso (Giuseppe),
Dominick’s nephew, removed the 2000 gallon tank.
Afterward, Connecticut Tank Removal, Inc. (Connecti-
cut Tank), conducted soil sampling of the area where
3
Despite these letters and the earlier DEEP inspections of the tank, Domi-
nick testified that he was not aware of any environmental contamination
on the premises at the time the parties signed the lease in November, 2013.
Dominick explained that, after he received the test results from Absolute
Tank, he spoke to an official at DEEP who informed him that the results
were not significant and ‘‘[didn’t] mean a thing in contamination.’’ Dominick
testified that he became aware of the contamination only after DEEP issued
an order to the plaintiffs in July, 2014, to remediate the contamination. The
trial court found that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants were aware
that the premises contained contaminants ‘‘above action levels’’ prior to a
subsequent order issued by DEEP in July, 2014.
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL July 20, 2021