DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Sullivan v. Lazzari, 43 A.3d 750 (2012)

Citation
Sullivan v. Lazzari, 43 A.3d 750 (2012)
Parent Document
Sullivan v. Lazzari, 43 A.3d 750 (2012)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2012-05-29
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2294526/sullivan-v-lazzari/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text

575 chars 
First, the defendants’ premise is erroneous. Although they stated in their “Motion to Demand a Jury Trial Preserved in the Constitutions” that “the [p]laintiff is seeking monetary payments as described in her ‘ [n] otice to [q]uit,’ ” the plaintiff seeks in the complaint only possession of the premises. The possibly relevant language in the notice to quit is standard language stating that any payments after service of the notice to quit will be accepted as payments for use and occupancy. Use and occupancy payments during the pendency of an action are not money damages.