Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)

Citation: Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Parent Document: Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10136084/milford-redevelopment-housing-... ↗

Full Text

3,351 chars

The following facts, as found by the trial court or as
         undisputed in the record, and procedural history are
         relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The defendant
         has been a tenant of 100 Viscount Drive, Apartment
         C12, in Milford (property) for more than ten years. The
         plaintiff, which is a public housing authority (PHA),
         owns and operates the property in accordance with
         federal regulations. The plaintiff, as mandated by title
         24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, § 965.653,3
         requires its tenants to sign a smoke-free housing policy
         (no-smoking policy), which provides, inter alia, ‘‘Smok-
         ing outside [the plaintiff’s] building is limited to specific
         ground for affirmance] . . . that has not been raised and decided in the
         trial court.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Circu-
         lent, Inc. v. Hatch & Bailey Co., 217 Conn. App. 622, 635 n.7, 289 A.3d 609
         (2023). The defendant has presented no argument that this case presents
         an exceptional circumstance to warrant our review. Second, the record
         lacks the requisite factual findings necessary for us to decide this claim.
         See Hartford v. McKeever, 314 Conn. 255, 274, 101 A.3d 229 (2014) (Appellate
         Court was not required to review alternative ground for affirmance ‘‘when
         the record was inadequate for review of the claim because the trial court
         had not made the requisite factual findings’’).
            3
              Title 24 of the 2021 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, § 965.653,
         provides: ‘‘(a) In general. PHAs must design and implement a policy prohib-
         iting the use of prohibited tobacco products in all public housing living
         units and interior areas (including but not limited to hallways, rental and
         administrative offices, community centers, day care centers, laundry centers,
         and similar structures), as well as in outdoor areas within 25 feet from
         public housing and administrative office buildings (collectively, ‘restricted
         areas’) in which public housing is located.
            ‘‘(b) Designated smoking areas. PHAs may limit smoking to designated
         smoking areas on the grounds of the public housing or administrative office
         buildings in order to accommodate residents who smoke. These areas must
         be outside of any restricted areas, as defined in paragraph (a) of this section,
         and may include partially enclosed structures. Alternatively, PHAs may
         choose to create additional smoke-free areas outside the restricted areas
         or to make their entire grounds smoke-free.
            ‘‘(c) Prohibited tobacco products. A PHA’s smoke-free policy must, at a
         minimum, ban the use of all prohibited tobacco products. Prohibited tobacco
         products are defined as:
            ‘‘(1) Items that involve the ignition and burning of tobacco leaves, such
         as (but not limited to) cigarettes, cigars, and pipes.
            ‘‘(2) To the extent not covered by paragraph (c) (1) of this section,
         waterpipes (hookahs).’’
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 3

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text