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

2,356 chars

to prepare a defense. The defendant further argues that
       the statutory language that was included in the notice
       to quit alleging grounds of violation of §§ 47a-11 and
       47a-32 do not provide separate and distinct reasons for
       the tenant and does not set out the factual basis for
       the reasons. Therefore, according to the defendant, [the
       language of the notice to quit] makes it difficult for the
       defendant to decipher which provisions of the lease
       and statute are being invoked for which alleged incident
       or behavior. The plaintiff contends that the notice to
       quit provided detailed, specific, and sufficient informa-
       tion to allow the defendant to defend against the action,
       as required by statute.’’
          After setting forth the relevant legal principles, the
       court addressed the parties’ arguments. First, it granted
       the motion to dismiss to the extent that the plaintiff
       had alleged serious nuisance due to the ambiguity in
       the complaint regarding such claim. The court then
       turned to the issue of the claims pertaining to nuisance
       and violations of the lease. It explained that the Kapa
       notice set forth conduct that began in April, 2022, and
       occurred throughout that year. The court reasoned:
       ‘‘The Kapa notice is intended to give the defendant
       notice of a defect and provide the defendant with fifteen
       days to cure the alleged defect, but if the acts upon
       which [it is] based occurred a year prior, the [Kapa]
       notice is improper. In the notice to quit . . . there is
       no supplemental [Kapa] notice which includes these
       events with an opportunity for the defendant to cure.’’
       The court further determined that ‘‘[t]he notice to quit
       fails to provide sufficient detail for the defendant to be
       apprised of what portions of the lease the defendant was
       in violation of or which of the many possible breaches
       of tenant obligations that are listed in the referenced
       statute that the plaintiff is proceeding on. The notice
       to quit must be carefully constructed so as to specify
       which counts the plaintiff is basing its summary process
Page 8                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text