Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)

Citation: Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
Parent Document: Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2013-03-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7914988/carrillo-v-goldberg/ ↗

Full Text

733 chars

We turn now to the issue of whether the court improperly failed to double the plaintiffs’ security deposit in its award of damages. In its memorandum of decision dated October 13, 2011, the court found that the double damages provision of § 47a-21 (d) (2) had not been triggered in this case. The court reasoned that the defendants had provided an accounting of claimed damages to the plaintiffs before the plaintiffs sent the defendants notice of their forwarding address, thereby precluding an award of double damages pursuant to § 47a-21 (d) (2). As the court’s finding is contrary to the language of § 47a-21 (d) (2), we conclude that the court erred in declining to award the plaintiffs double their security deposit in damages.

Other Sections in This Document (52)

Full Text