Pearlman v. Gervolino, 234 Conn. App. 18 (2025)

Citation: Pearlman v. Gervolino, 234 Conn. App. 18 (2025)
Parent Document: Pearlman v. Gervolino, 234 Conn. App. 18 (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-07-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10647034/pearlman-v-gervolino/ ↗

Full Text

2,946 chars

Thereafter, on November 23, 2022, the plaintiff com-
menced the underlying action against the defendant,
alleging, inter alia, breach of contract for nonpayment
of rent. The defendant, in turn, filed an answer, special
defenses, and a five count counterclaim. Pertinent to
this appeal, count two of the counterclaim alleged that
the plaintiff failed to place the defendant’s security
deposit into an escrow account in violation of General
Statutes § 47a-21 (h),4 and count five of the counter-
claim alleged multiple violations5 of CUTPA.6 The mat-
ter was tried before the court, Shaban, J., on July 12,
(2024); Doe v. West Hartford, 168 Conn. App. 354, 359 n.5, 147 A.3d 1083
(2016), aff’d, 328 Conn. 172, 177 A.3d 1128 (2018).
4
General Statutes § 47a-21 (h) provides in relevant part: ‘‘(1) Each landlord
shall immediately deposit the entire amount of any security deposit received
by such landlord from each tenant into one or more escrow accounts estab-
lished or maintained in a financial institution for the benefit of each tenant.
Each landlord shall maintain each such account as escrow agent and shall
not withdraw funds from such account . . . .
(4) (A) The landlord shall provide each tenant with a written notice stating
the amount held for the benefit of the tenant and the name and address of
the financial institution at which the tenant’s security deposit is being held
not later than thirty days after the landlord receives a security deposit from
the tenant or the tenant’s previous landlord or transfers the security deposit
to another financial institution or escrow account. . . .’’
5
Specifically, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff’s violation of § 47a-
21 (h), as set forth in count two of the counterclaim, constituted a violation
of CUTPA. The remaining CUTPA violations alleged in count five of the
counterclaim consisted of several alleged violations of § 47a-21 (d) related
to the plaintiff’s handling of the security deposit, the plaintiff’s unauthorized
towing of the defendant’s car, and the plaintiff’s ‘‘failure to provide smoke
alarms’’ and ‘‘to maintain the premises in a condition fit for habitation.’’
6
The remaining counts of the counterclaim alleged breach of contract
related to the plaintiff’s handling of the security deposit (count one), harass-
ment and unlawful entry into premises (count three), and trespass to chattel
on the basis of the plaintiff having the defendant’s car towed from the
premises (count four).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text