Section 47a-23

Citation: Section 47a-23
Parent Document: Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2013-07-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7915215/pollansky-v-pollansky/ ↗

Full Text

798 chars

The court rejected the defendants’ second special defense that the notice to quit was invalid as to Anna P. Poliansky and Kyle Poliansky. The court determined that the notice to quit, which was served on April 28, 2011, and which cited the grounds in § 47a-23 (a) (3) as to all defendants, was valid. More importantly, the *196court found that both Anna P. Poliansky and Kyle Pol-iansky, like their parents, had permission to occupy the premises and that that permission had terminated. Anna P. Poliansky and Kyle Poliansky argue that the court erred in determining that the notice to quit was valid as to them because notice properly should have been issued under § 47a-23 (a) (2). Prior to the service of the notice to quit, the argument goes, they never had the privilege to occupy the premises.

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text