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
Other Sections in This Document (50)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
- Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
Full Text
2,482 charsThe plaintiffs initiated this summary process action
after the defendants did not vacate the premises by the
date specified in the notice to quit. The defendants raised
six special defenses in response to the plaintiffs’ com-
plaint, including the special defense of equitable nonfor-
feiture. The parties filed a joint stipulation of facts on
May 19, 2015, and a trial occurred over three days. At
trial, Nader and Sassoon testified that they decided to
stop paying rent for a number of reasons, including that
‘‘this was the only way [they] could stay in business,’’
that they ‘‘were trying to draw [the plaintiffs’] attention
to what [they were] facing,’’ and that they ‘‘were fearful
[that], if [their franchisor] Subway for any reason [got]
involved with this contamination and violations, where
would [they] stand?’’
The trial court rendered judgement of possession for
the plaintiffs. The trial court’s written order explained:
‘‘The court finds [that] the defendant[s] [have] breached
the lease for nonpayment of rent. . . . The elements
necessary to sustain the defense of equitable nonforfei-
ture do not exist in this case because the defendant[s]
caused the breach intentionally. That finding alone
negates any finding of equitable nonforfeiture.’’ The
defendants appealed to the Appellate Court. The defen-
dants filed a motion for articulation, seeking, among
other things, clarification of the factual basis for the
trial court’s determination that they had failed to meet
their burden of proof on their special defense of equita-
ble nonforfeiture. The motion for articulation included
a request that the trial court articulate whether the
court considered evidence that the defendants’ failure
to pay rent was accompanied by a good faith intent to
comply with the terms of the lease or a good faith dis-
pute over the meaning of the lease. The trial court denied
the motion for articulation without comment.
The defendants filed a motion for review of the trial
court’s denial of their motion for articulation with the
July 20, 2021 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11