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

2,265 chars

action on. Additionally, a clear and concise pretermina-
tion notice must be sent to the defendant describing
the violations alleged as well as providing the [defen-
dant] with the opportunity to cure. The plaintiff failed
to serve a valid notice to quit that provided sufficient
specificity to allow the defendant to prepare a defense
to the summary process action.’’ (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, the court granted the defendant’s
motion to dismiss the summary process complaint.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for reargument
and for clarification. It argued that the court improperly
imposed an obligation to cite specific provisions in the
lease that had been violated and that such a requirement
is absent from the applicable statutes and case law.
Additionally, the plaintiff contended that the court
improperly engaged in a ‘‘hypertechnical dissection of
the wording’’ of the notice to quit. Further, the plaintiff
claimed that the conduct set forth in the Kapa notice
was criminal in nature, and thus not subject to cure,
and therefore it was irrelevant that the defendant was
not provided an opportunity to cure. The defendant
filed an objection to the motion to reargue and for
clarification. On November 20, 2023, the court denied
the plaintiff’s motion without further discussion. This
appeal followed.
I
The plaintiff principally claims that the court improp-
erly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss its sum-
mary process action after concluding that the Kapa
notice and the notice to quit were invalid. First, the
plaintiff argues that the court improperly determined
that the Kapa notice was invalid because it alleged
conduct that had occurred one year prior to its issuance.
Second, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly
concluded that the Kapa notice was invalid because it
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text