Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)

Citation: Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
Parent Document: Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2020-09-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4900130/boccanfuso-v-daghoghi/ ↗

Full Text

2,586 chars

and permitting of the premises. Prior to the execution
          of the lease, the defendants and Girouard memorialized,
          in a letter dated October 29, 2013, their agreement that
          Girouard would provide ‘‘consulting [and] design ser-
          vices’’ for the renovations and permitting process.5
          These services included ‘‘[a]ssist[ing] [the] owners6 in
          overseeing demolition [and] renovation of [the prem-
          ises],’’ ‘‘[s]chedul[ing] and oversee[ing] necessary
          inspections,’’ facilitating the ‘‘[p]ermitting process for
          [e]ngineering, [b]uilding, [z]oning [and] [f]ire [d]epart-
          ments,’’ and ‘‘[p]repar[ing] for permits, inspections,
          etc.’’ (Footnote added.) The defendants agreed to pay
          Girouard $22,500 for these services.
             On November 22, 2013, the parties entered into a
          lease for the premises. The term of the lease was for
          five years, with an option to extend for five additional
          five year terms. Under the lease, the defendants would
          assume ‘‘the sole responsibility for all expenses and
          costs associated with the [p]remises . . . .’’ The lease
          provided, however, that the plaintiffs were ‘‘responsible
          for any environmental issues which may arise with the
          [premises].’’ The monthly rent was $16,388, payment of
          which would commence on the earlier of (1) the date
          on which the defendants opened for business, or (2)
          the 180th day after a fully executed lease was delivered
          to the defendants.
            After the execution of the lease, the defendants began
          preparations to renovate the premises. In December,
          2013, Girouard provided renovation plans to the defen-
          dants, which they approved. Girouard also solicited
          bids from prospective contractors for the renovation
          project. As work on the renovations progressed, Girou-
          ard signed applications for the relevant permits and
            5
              Girouard printed this letter on stationery with the letterhead ‘‘Klein New
          England.’’ From the testimony adduced at trial, it appears that Klein New
          England is a sole proprietorship owned by Girouard.
            6
              Girouard testified that the term ‘‘owners’’ referred to the defendants.
          Sassoon testified that he understood the term to refer to the plaintiffs.
Page 8                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                July 20, 2021

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text