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

2,423 chars

on April 18, 2023, the plaintiff served the defendant
with a notice to quit possession for conduct in violation
of the lease agreement, the plaintiff’s rules and regula-
tions, and the defendant’s statutory obligations as a
tenant pursuant to § 47a-11, as well as for conduct con-
stituting a nuisance pursuant to § 47a-32, and/or serious
nuisance pursuant to § 47a-15. The notice to quit reas-
serted the eight instances of conduct that had been
listed in the Kapa notice as the reasons for the termina-
tion of the lease, and added the following: (1) the defen-
dant’s (and others on the premises with his consent)
breaking of windows that occurred most recently in
April, 2023; (2) the defendant’s April, 2023 threat to
harm his neighbor physically; (3) the use of the premises
by John Doe and Jane Doe, who once may have had
the right or privilege to so do, but such right or privilege
has terminated; and (4) the use of the premises by John
Doe and Jane Doe who never had the right or privilege
to do so. The notice to quit also contained the following
language: ‘‘The tenant has the following: (a) the right
to reply to this [notice to quit]; (b) the right to inspect
the file; and (c) the right to a grievance, if appro-
priate. . . .’’
The defendant did not quit possession. The plaintiff
then served the defendant with a summary process
summons and complaint on June 16, 2023, seeking imme-
diate possession of the premises. Three of the five
counts were directed against the defendant10 and
alleged violations of a tenant’s responsibilities pursuant
to § 47a-11, lease violations, and nuisance.
On July 31, 2023, the defendant filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, along with a memorandum of
law. See Practice Book § 10-30.11 Specifically, he argued
10
Counts three and four of the complaint were directed against the Doe
defendants. See footnote 1 of this opinion.
11
Practice Book § 10-30 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘A motion to dismiss
shall be used to assert: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter . . . .’’
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text