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

2,758 chars

to quit smoking and attempting to comply with the [no-
       smoking] policy. To terminate the defendant’s lease,
       however, the court must find that the defendant, by a
       fair preponderance of the evidence, did not cure lease
       violations. The evidence before the court only estab-
       lishes an initial violation of the [no-smoking] policy but
       does not establish any violations after the pretermina-
       tion notice. The court suspects that the defendant may
       have violated the [no-smoking] policy, but that suspi-
       cion is not supported by any evidence presented by the
       plaintiff.
          ‘‘Accordingly, the court enters judgment for the
       defendant and reinstates the defendant’s lease with the
       plaintiff. This is without prejudice for the plaintiff to
       start a new action with evidence of noncompliance
       with the lease following an additional pretermination
       notice.’’ (Emphasis omitted.) This appeal followed.
          The defendant, through counsel, filed a motion to
       dismiss this appeal on the basis that the trial court
       lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s
       action because the ‘‘[p]laintiff’s federally required
       pretermination notice did not comply with the time
       frame established by 42 U.S.C. § 1437d (k) (2)6 and
         6
            Title 42 of the United States Code, § 1437d (k), titled ‘‘Administrative
       grievance procedure regulations: grounds of adverse action, hearing, exami-
       nation of documents, representation, evidence, decision; judicial hearing;
       eviction and termination procedures,’’ provides in relevant part:
          ‘‘The Secretary shall by regulation require each public housing agency
       receiving assistance under this chapter to establish and implement an admin-
       istrative grievance procedure under which tenants will—
          ‘‘(1) be advised of the specific grounds of any proposed adverse public
       housing agency action;
          ‘‘(2) have an opportunity for a hearing before an impartial party upon
       timely request within any period applicable under subsection (l);
          ‘‘(3) have an opportunity to examine any documents or records or regula-
       tions related to the proposed action;
          ‘‘(4) be entitled to be represented by another person of their choice at
       any hearing;
          ‘‘(5) be entitled to ask questions of witnesses and have others make
       statements on their behalf; and
          ‘‘(6) be entitled to receive a written decision by the public housing agency
       on the proposed action. . . .’’
Page 8                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text