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
2,477 charsa good faith intent to comply with the lease or a good
faith dispute over the meaning of a lease.’’ Id., 69.
In the present case, the trial court found that the
defendants’ intentional nonpayment of rent was not
accompanied by a good faith intent to comply with the
lease or a good faith dispute over the meaning of the
lease. In its first articulation, the trial court explained
that it ‘‘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 trial court elabo-
rated in its supplemental articulation, explaining: ‘‘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 failed to prove that they were justi-
fied in withholding the rent because of the contamina-
tion issues affecting the subject premises. . . . [T]he
plaintiffs . . . did promptly take steps to address the
environmental issues affecting the exterior of the prop-
erty, as required by [the lease]. . . . The defendants
suffered no detriment as a result of the contamination
and remediation. They failed to offer any evidence that
they ever even complained about the contamination
and remediation until they filed their answer in this
case on March 24, 2015.’’ Instead, the court explained:
‘‘The defendants’ real issue centers on the delays in
renovation and, therefore, in openings of business oper-
ations, beyond the rental grace period, thereby obligat-
ing 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].’’ In so finding,
the court referenced paragraph 31 of the lease, which
provides that the ‘‘[l]essee, at his expense shall make
all necessary repairs and replacements to the [l]leased
July 20, 2021 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 17