Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Citation
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Parent Document
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2010-06-15
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2099534/zapata-v-mora/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
- Zapata v. Mora, 996 A.2d 1203 (2010)
Full Text
594 charsOn November 4,2008, the court in that action issued a permanent order restoring the defendant to possession of the premises. At the trial on the summary process action, the defendant argued, as he does on appeal, that the order restoring him to possession created a new right or privilege for him to occupy the premises and that the plaintiff therefore was required to serve a new notice to quit possession. The court concluded that the order restoring possession did not create a new tenancy but, rather, only restored the defendant to his original position. The defendant thereafter appealed.