Housing Authority v. Cyr, 234 Conn. App. 527 (2025)

Citation: Housing Authority v. Cyr, 234 Conn. App. 527 (2025)
Parent Document: Housing Authority v. Cyr, 234 Conn. App. 527 (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-08-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10659980/housing-authority-v-cyr/ ↗

Full Text

3,510 chars

lacked subject matter jurisdiction.2 We conclude that
the court improperly dismissed this summary process
action.
The following facts and procedural history are rele-
vant to our review. On February 5, 2018, the plaintiff
leased the property located at 56-F House Drive in Man-
chester (premises) to the defendant.3 On March 5, 2023,
the plaintiff sent the defendant a pretermination notice
(Kapa notice)4 notifying him of conduct constituting a
2
As a matter of appellate procedure, we note that the defendant did not
preserve this claim for review by filing a preliminary statement of issues in
accordance with our rules of practice. Practice Book § 63-4 (a) (1) provides
in relevant part: ‘‘If any appellee wishes to: (A) present for review alternative
grounds upon which the judgment may be affirmed; (B) present for review
adverse rulings or decisions of the court which should be considered on
appeal in the event the appellant is awarded a new trial; or (C) claim that
a new trial rather than a directed judgment should be ordered if the appellant
is successful on the appeal, that appellee shall file a preliminary statement
of issues within twenty days from the filing of the appellant’s preliminary
statement of the issues.’’ See generally State v. Martin M., 143 Conn. App.
140, 151, 70 A.3d 135 (this court may, but is not required to, review alternative
ground for affirmance not raised in accordance with rules of practice so
long as appellant will not be prejudiced), cert. denied, 309 Conn. 919, 70
A.3d 41 (2013).
Despite the defendant’s noncompliance with our rules of practice, we
will review his alternative ground for affirmance because it implicates the
subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court and, therefore, may be raised
at any time. See, e.g., North Branford Citizens Against Bulk Propane Storage
v. North Branford, 230 Conn. App. 335, 341 n.5, 330 A.3d 196 (2025); Robinson
v. V. D., 229 Conn. App. 316, 325, 328 A.3d 198 (2024); Milford Redevelop-
ment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593, 602, 325 A.3d
971 (2024), cert. denied, 351 Conn. 902, 329 A.3d 239 (2025).
3
We note that the record in this case does not contain the lease executed
by the parties.
4
A Kapa notice refers to the form of pretermination notice that is required
under General Statutes § 47a-15, which provides in relevant part: ‘‘Prior to
the commencement of a summary process action, except in [certain cases]
. . . the landlord shall deliver a written notice to the tenant specifying the
acts or omissions constituting the breach and that the rental agreement
shall terminate upon a date not less than fifteen days after receipt of the
notice. If such breach can be remedied by repair by the tenant or payment
of damages by the tenant to the landlord, and such breach is not so remedied
within such fifteen-day period, the rental agreement shall terminate except
that (1) if the breach is remediable by repairs or the payment of damages and
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text