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

2,421 chars

Quit after I received it.’’ The defendant did not, in her
       answer, select as a special defense the statement: ‘‘I
       remedied the issue(s) listed in the pre-termination
       notice delivered to me under Connecticut law.’’
          The matter was tried to the court, Spader, J., on
       January 12, 2023. At trial, the plaintiff presented the
       testimony of its property manager, Robert Hughes, and
       offered into evidence (1) a photograph dated June 8,
       2022, which depicted the defendant smoking within
       twenty-five feet of the building; (2) a smoking offense
       charge slip dated January 27, 2022; and (3) an April 28,
       2020 letter advising the defendant that vaping consti-
       tuted a violation of the no-smoking policy. Hughes testi-
       fied that the plaintiff is a federally subsidized housing
       authority and requires all tenants to sign the no-smoking
       policy upon the renewal of their leases. Specifically,
       Hughes testified that the plaintiff ‘‘was probably the
       first in the state to have the . . . no-smoking policy.
       And later on [the United States Department of Housing
       and Urban Development] came up with their own [no-
       smoking] policy as well, which layers over [the plain-
       tiff’s].’’ Hughes also testified that the defendant repeat-
       edly had violated the no-smoking policy, and provided
       as an example that, in January, 2022, he had issued the
       defendant a smoking offense charge slip for smoking
       inside of her apartment and subsequently issued her a
       $25 fine.5
        The defendant testified that ‘‘I would walk to the tree
       where we would smoke and sometimes, yes, I would
       in a timely fashion may result in a denial of the request. If a grievance
       hearing is held and is resolved against you, [the plaintiff] may commence
       an immediate action to recover possession of the premises. A Notice to
       Quit terminating your tenancy will precede any such action.’’
         5
           Hughes also testified that a tenant living in a different PHA property
       also owned by the plaintiff has commenced an action with the Commissioner
       of Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that the plaintiff has failed to
       enforce its no-smoking policy.
Page 6                     CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text