‘‘The plaintiff is the owner-landlord of 51 Whiting
Street, unit 5, in Hamden (premises). The plaintiff
entered into a written lease agreement with the defen-
dant for the use and occupancy of the premises from
December 15, 2023, until November 30, 2024. The total
monthly rent is $1340 per month due on the first of the
month with a nine day grace period. The defendant’s
portion is $93 per month, and HUD-VASH pays the bal-
ance.
‘‘The defendant paid his portion of the prorated rent
upon the signing of the lease in December but did not
immediately move in due to a rodent and cockroach
infestation. He informed the plaintiff’s property man-
ager, Christina Young, of the infestation, which was
promptly remediated. In January, the defendant moved
in and noticed additional issues with the apartment,
including not having a mailbox key and a crack in the
door that allows rodents to enter. As a result of these
problems, the defendant did not pay rent in January.
By February, the defendant still did not have a mailbox
key, and so, did not pay February rent. When he was
assessed a late fee, the defendant complained by phone
to Young. Young told the defendant that he should make
his complaint through the plaintiff’s online portal and
that she would remove the late fee. After the defendant
used the portal to inform the plaintiff only about the
mailbox key, he received a key within twenty-four to
forty-eight hours. After the mailbox key issue was
resolved, the plaintiff reissued the $50 late fee when
the defendant still did not pay February rent.
‘‘The relationship between the defendant and Young
continued to deteriorate and broke down completely
after the defendant called Young a vulgar name when
she texted him about his late rent payments. Thereafter,
Young decided that all communications regarding the
premises would take place through the defendant’s
HUD-VASH counselor. The defendant’s counselor did
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3