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

2,571 chars

inadvertently light a cigarette. I have to be honest about
that, but it was not done to be malicious or anything
like that. It was just done mindlessly, to be honest with
you.’’ The defendant testified that she ‘‘messed up by
walking in front of the building, in all honesty’’ and that
she also had smoked in lawn chairs but believed that
the chairs were located more than twenty-five feet from
the building. The defendant further testified that she
has attempted to quit smoking and had tried vaping as
an alternative and that she did not recall receiving the
smoking offense charge slip or paying a fine for the
January, 2022 violation.
On February 21, 2023, the court issued its memoran-
dum of decision. The court determined that ‘‘the plain-
tiff claimed multiple violations of the no-smoking policy
as the basis of its claim of a lease violation. The evidence
presented at trial, however, only established violations
prior to the pretermination notice. The plaintiff’s wit-
ness testified as to the first smoking offense ticket in
January, 2022, and the 2020 vaping letter. The photo
presented into evidence showed the outdoors smoking
as time stamped by the plaintiff’s surveillance camera
as being taken June 8, 2022, a week prior to the letter.
The plaintiff did not present evidence of violations after
the sending of the letter. [Hughes] advised that he has
received complaints about many tenants, not just [the
defendant], and he does not have photos but is adamant
that she has violated the [no-smoking policy]. While
there may have been incidents and that is why the
plaintiff proceeded with this case, none were testified
to nor was evidence provided therefore.
‘‘While the Appellate Court cases . . . seem to indi-
cate that it is the defendant’s obligation to raise her
curing the lease violations as a special defense, under-
standing that the defendant is defending herself in a
self-represented capacity, the court must still consider
the evidence before it in making its decision. The defen-
dant did not proactively claim that she did not further
violate the [no-smoking] policy, only that she was trying
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text