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

2,547 chars

[p]remises,’’ and paragraph 32, which provides that
‘‘[a]ll alterations and improvements to the [p]remises
are the [l]essee’s sole responsibility. All expenses and
costs associated with the required zoning change of use
are the [l]essee’s sole responsibility.’’
The trial court found, in other words, that the defen-
dants’ decision not to pay rent was motivated by the
difficulties arising from the delay in the renovation and
occupancy of the premises, and, in fact, had nothing
to do with a dispute over the terms of the lease, which
explicitly placed the responsibility for renovations and
alterations on the defendants. If the delay implicated
any good faith dispute over contractual terms, that dis-
pute involved the contract between the defendants and
Girouard for ‘‘consulting’’ and ‘‘design services’’ regard-
ing the renovations. The trial court found, however,
that the agreement between the defendants and Girou-
ard ‘‘was entered into separate from and independent
of the agreement between the plaintiffs . . . and the
defendants . . . .’’
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that the defendants’ withholding of rent was unaccom-
panied by a good faith intent to comply with the lease
or a good faith dispute over the meaning of the lease.
We find Sassoon’s testimony at trial particularly illumi-
nating on this point. When asked why the defendants
stopped paying rent, Sassoon explained: ‘‘[I]t was [an]
act of desperation. Because we were trying to draw
[the plaintiffs’] attention to what we [were] facing, [how]
we [were] hurting. Because [Girouard] was not taking
our orders. He was not returning our phone calls. He
was not taking our orders. So this was [the] only way
we could stay in business and pay for our rent.8 Because
we were deep into the project, without being into the
8
The defendants were obligated to pay rent on a lease for another property,
where their businesses previously had been located and remained located
while renovations progressed.
Page 18 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL July 20, 2021

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text