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

2,410 chars

did not refer to specific provisions of the lease or statu-
       tory sections that had been violated as a result of the
       conduct alleged in these notices.13 Finally, the plaintiff
       asserts that the court also improperly determined that
       the notice to quit was insufficient due to a lack of
       specificity. We agree with the plaintiff that the court,
       in granting the motion to dismiss, improperly concluded
       that the Kapa notice and notice to quit were invalid.
          The following legal principles are relevant to our
       resolution of this claim. ‘‘A motion to dismiss . . .
       properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially
       asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law
       and fact state a cause of action that should be heard
       by the court. . . . A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia,
       whether, on the face of the record, the court is without
       jurisdiction. . . . A claim that a court lacks subject
       matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during
       the proceedings, including on appeal. . . . There is no
       doubt that the Superior Court is authorized to hear
       summary process cases . . . . The jurisdiction of the
       Superior Court in summary process actions, however,
       is subject to [certain] condition[s] precedent. . . .
       [B]efore a landlord may pursue its statutory remedy
       of summary process . . . the landlord must prove its
       compliance with all the applicable preconditions set by
       state and federal law for the termination of a lease. . . .
       When a defendant is a tenant of federally subsidized
       housing, federal law must be followed in addition to
       state law.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks
       omitted.) Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partner-
       ship v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593, 602–603, 325 A.3d
       971 (2024), cert. denied, 351 Conn. 902, 329 A.3d 239
       (2025); see also Housing Authority v. Stevens, 209
         13
            In its appellate brief, the plaintiff also argues that the court improperly
       granted the motion to dismiss after engaging in a hypertechnical dissection
       of the notices. We need not address this claim given our resolution in favor
       of the plaintiff.
Page 10                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text