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/ ↗

Full Text

705 chars

The notice to quit tracked the statutorily required language. First, the notice to quit identified the premises: It stated: “I hereby give you notice that you are to quit possession and occupancy of the dwelling now occupied by you at #132 Rock Creek Road, New Haven . . . .” The court credited the plaintiffs testimony that the defendants occupied the entire house, except for the bedroom of the plaintiffs brother, and that they had access to the entire house. There was no ambiguity or mistake regarding what premises were the subject of the notice to quit. Although in other circumstances more specificity may be necessary in order to avoid ambiguity or uncertainty; see Vogel v. Bacus, 133 Conn. *841

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text