Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Citation
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-12-17
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7911954/blitz-v-subklew/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
Full Text
967 charsThe court heard evidence from the parties concerning the board meetings and reviewed the minutes and tapes of the board meetings. The court concluded that the board “would not grant the defendant’s application to allow automobile sales use on the premises.” The court also stated that “the language [of the lease] is clear and unambiguous that the plaintiff as landlord was to obtain written verification that the subject premises were properly zoned so that the defendant could operate an auto sales and repair business. There was no evidence provided by the plaintiff, either through testimony or by way of exhibits, that provided proof to the court that the plaintiff had obtained zoning approval to operate an *186auto sales and repair business at the subject premises. By the very language in paragraph C, the commercial lease becomes null and void if the plaintiff fails to provide such written verification.” We agree with the court’s reasoning and conclusion.