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
2,409 charsAppellate Court. The Appellate Court granted the
motion for review in part, ordering the trial court to,
inter alia, ‘‘articulate . . . whether it considered the
defendants’ good faith intent to comply with the lease
and their good faith dispute over the meaning of the
lease in reaching its decision on the special defense of
equitable nonforfeiture and, if so, how its consideration
of these matters impacted its decision on the defendants’
special defense of equitable nonforfeiture . . . .’’ The
trial court issued an articulation in which it articulated
a number of factual findings and explained: ‘‘The trial
court considered and rejected [the] defendants’ claimed
good faith intent to comply with the lease and also
rejected the defendants’ alleged good faith dispute over
the meanings of the lease. The defendants were well-
advised of the property and were ill-advised by their
counsel to withhold rent and breach their obligation to
pay rent to the plaintiff[s].’’
Unsatisfied, the defendants filed a second motion for
review of the trial court’s articulation. The Appellate
Court thereafter issued a second order for articulation,
in terms substantially similar to the first order. The trial
court responded with a supplemental articulation. The
supplemental articulation stated: ‘‘The defendants’ alleged
concerns about the contamination [were] pretextual,
since neither the contamination nor the remediation
had any effect on the critical path of the defendants’
renovations to the property. The defendants’ real issue
centers on the delays in renovation and, therefore, in
openings of business operations, beyond the rental
grace period, thereby obligating them to pay rent under
the lease and to their existing landlords. The plaintiffs
were not responsible for the delays [under the terms
of the lease].
***
‘‘The defendants failed to prove that they were justi-
fied in withholding the rent because of the contamina-
Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL July 20, 2021