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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4900130/boccanfuso-v-daghoghi/ ↗

Full Text

2,331 chars

tion issues affecting the subject premises. . . . [T]he
          plaintiffs . . . did promptly take steps to address the
          environmental issues affecting the exterior of the prop-
          erty, as required by [the lease]. . . . The defendants
          suffered no detriment as a result of the contamination
          and remediation. They failed to offer any evidence that
          they ever even complained about the contamination and
          remediation until they filed their answer in this case
          on March 24, 2015.’’ In support of its conclusion that
          the contamination and remediation did not cause any
          detriment to the defendants, the trial court explained
          that ‘‘[n]either the contamination itself nor the reme-
          diation thereof affected the renovation time line of the
          retail [rug gallery] space or the Subway space; nor did
          the contamination and remediation affect the operation
          of either business.’’
             The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the
          trial court. See Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 193 Conn. App.
          137, 140, 171, 219 A.3d 400 (2019). The defendants peti-
          tioned for certification to appeal to this court, and we
          granted certification, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did
          the Appellate Court properly uphold the trial court’s
          judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the denial of the
          defendants’ special defense of equitable nonforfeiture?’’
          Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 333 Conn. 943, 219 A.3d 373
          (2019).
                                        II
             On appeal, the defendants claim that the Appellate
          Court improperly affirmed the trial court’s judgment
          rejecting their special defense of equitable nonforfei-
          ture and granting possession of the premises to the
          plaintiffs. The defendants argue that their failure to pay
          rent was not properly considered ‘‘wilful,’’ as that term
          is understood under the doctrine of equitable nonforfei-
          ture. The plaintiffs contend in response that the Appel-
          late Court properly affirmed the trial court’s judgment
July 20, 2021             CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 13

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text