§ 966

Citation: § 966
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

2,602 chars

the notices were required to (1) notify the defendant
       that he is not entitled to a grievance hearing, (2) specify
       the judicial eviction procedure to be used and state
       that the federal government has determined that this
       procedure provides the opportunity for a hearing in
       court that contains the basic elements of due process
       as defined in this context, and (3) state whether the
       eviction was for criminal activity or drug related crimi-
       nal activity. See 24 C.F.R. § 966.4 (l) (3) (v) (C) (2023).
          For the first time on appeal, the defendant claims that
       the plaintiff’s notices failed to meet the requirements
       of federal law. Specifically, he notes that the notices
       merely informed him, inter alia, of his right to reply
       and the right to a grievance hearing, if appropriate.16
       Essentially, the defendant contends that the informa-
       tion regarding a grievance hearing contained in the
       plaintiff’s notices was insufficient by merely stating that
       he was entitled to a grievance hearing, if appropriate.
       The defendant further contends that he was not required
       to show prejudice, and, as a result of the plaintiff’s
       failure to comply with federal statutory and regulatory
       requirements, the notices were invalid and the trial
       court lacked jurisdiction to hear the summary pro-
       cess action.
          In its reply brief, the plaintiff counters that the defen-
       dant ‘‘essentially argues that any minor deviation from
       24 C.F.R. § 966.4 must automatically lead to a dis-
       missal.’’ It further contends that this argument is con-
       trary to our law, citing Jefferson Garden Associates v.
         16
            In the present case, the Kapa notice contained the following information:
       ‘‘The tenant has the following: (a) the right to reply to this [n]otice and (b)
       the right to a grievance hearing, if appropriate, and (c) the right to inspect
       the findings. The [l]ease cannot terminate until after the cure date referenced
       above.’’ The notice to quit provided the defendant with the following informa-
       tion: ‘‘The tenant has the following: (a) the right to reply to this [n]otice;
       (b) the right to inspect the file; and (c) the right to a grievance, if appropriate.
       The [l]ease cannot terminate until the grievance deadline has passed or the
       grievance, if requested, has been conducted.’’
Page 26                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text