NORWICH HOUSING AUTHORITY vs. DAVIS, JR, DENNIS E, No. KNOCV266111969S (Conn. Super. Ct. 2026)

“The defendant, however, mistakenly conflates the court’s subject matter
jurisdiction with the merits of the plaintiff's summary process claim. . . . It
follows that, for purposes of determining whether it had subject matter
jurisdiction over the plaintiff's summary process action, the court in the
present case needed to determine only whether the notice to quit issued
by the plaintiff complied with section 47a-23. The court did not need
to reach the merits of whether the defendant’s conduct did, in fact, constitute
a serious nuisance in order to exercise jurisdiction over the action. . . . The
plaintiff commenced this summary process action on the grounds that the
defendant’s conduct constituted a serious nuisance within the meaning of section
47a-15 (B) and ( C). Its notice to quit included the requisite language set
forth in section 47a-23 (b), and the defendant did not claim that the notice
to quit was otherwise defective in form or delivery. Accordingly, the plaintiff's
undisputed compliance with the requirements of section 47a-23 provided
the court with subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims.”