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
2,291 charstamination at their own expense, and the property was
remediated in accordance with a stipulated judgment
that had entered in a separate civil action commenced
by DEEP against the plaintiff corporation.
A letter dated August 1, 2014, memorialized a second
agreement between Girouard and the defendants for
‘‘additional services to be rendered’’ on the Subway por-
tion of the premises. This letter established that Girou-
ard would procure various approvals and permits, includ-
ing planning and zoning approval, for modifications
made to the previously approved building plans. Girou-
ard would also ‘‘[o]btain planning [and] zoning approval
for retail food use.’’ In exchange, the defendants would
pay Girouard an additional $9000.
On September 15, 2014, the defendants obtained a
building permit for the Subway portion of the premises.
The defendants continued to pay monthly rent through
November, 2014, but stopped paying rent in December.
At that point, the renovations of the premises remained
incomplete, and the defendants, through Girouard, still
had not yet obtained certificates of occupancy for either
the retail rug gallery or the Subway portions of the
premises. The defendants also failed to pay rent in Janu-
ary and February, 2015. On January 7, 2015, the plaintiffs
served a notice to quit on Sassoon, thereby terminating
the lease.
Despite the notice to quit, the defendants did not
vacate the premises. Renovations continued, and the
defendants obtained a certificate of occupancy for the
rug gallery portion of the premises in February, 2015.
They opened the rug gallery for business on March
1, 2015. Also in March, the defendants began making
monthly use and occupancy payments to the plaintiffs
in the amount of $16,338 per month. They obtained a
certificate of occupancy for the Subway portion of the
premises on June 5, 2015.
Page 10 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL July 20, 2021