Deluca v. Onofrio, No. Spnh 9803-54307 (Apr. 17, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Deluca v. Onofrio, No. Spnh 9803-54307 (Apr. 17, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4861

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 17, 1998

DocketNo. SPNH 9803-54307

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4861 (Deluca v. Onofrio, No. Spnh 9803-54307 (Apr. 17, 1998)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deluca v. Onofrio, No. Spnh 9803-54307 (Apr. 17, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4861 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff is the owner of a dwelling in Branford. The dwelling was occupied by a nonparty tenant. The named defendant, Thomas Onofrio, subsequently came to reside in the dwelling with that nonparty tenant, agreeing with the latter that he would pay one-half of the monthly $700.00 rent. The nonparty tenant vacated; Onofrio remained. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, now seeks to evict Onofrio in this summary process action for nonpayment of rent.

The plaintiff was impeded in the presentation of his case by his pro se status and other handicaps. The court, however, is bound by the evidence, or the lack thereof. While there are several grounds on which a lessor, in a proper case, may seek to evict a lessee or occupant; see General Statutes § 47a-23 (a); this action is based solely on nonpayment of rent. "The allegations of a complaint limit the issues to be decided on the trial of a case and are calculated to prevent surprise to opposing parties. 61 Am.Jur.2d, Pleading, § 371; 1 Stephenson, Conn. Civ. Proc. (2d Ed.) § 99. It is fundamental in our law that the right of a plaintiff to recover is limited to the allegations of his complaint. Nash Engineering Co. v.Norwalk, 137 Conn. 235, 239, 75 A.2d 496. A plaintiff may not allege one cause of action and recover upon another. Lundborg v.CT Page 4862Kovacs, 172 Conn. 229, 232-233, 374 A.2d 201 (1977). Therefore, for the plaintiff to prevail, he was bound to prove, as he has alleged in paragraph three of his complaint, that there was an agreement, express or implied, between Onofrio and him for the payment of a certain monthly rental. Because the plaintiff has not proven this allegation, judgment may enter for the defendants.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff is the owner of a dwelling in Branford. The dwelling was occupied by a nonparty tenant. The named defendant, Thomas Onofrio, subsequently came to reside in the dwelling with that nonparty tenant, agreeing with the latter that he would pay one-half of the monthly $700.00 rent. The nonparty tenant vacated; Onofrio remained. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, now seeks to evict Onofrio in this summary process action for nonpayment of rent.

The plaintiff was impeded in the presentation of his case by his pro se status and other handicaps. The court, however, is bound by the evidence, or the lack thereof. While there are several grounds on which a lessor, in a proper case, may seek to evict a lessee or occupant; see General Statutes § 47a-23 (a); this action is based solely on nonpayment of rent. "The allegations of a complaint limit the issues to be decided on the trial of a case and are calculated to prevent surprise to opposing parties. 61 Am.Jur.2d, Pleading, § 371; 1 Stephenson, Conn. Civ. Proc. (2d Ed.) § 99. It is fundamental in our law that the right of a plaintiff to recover is limited to the allegations of his complaint. Nash Engineering Co. v.Norwalk, 137 Conn. 235, 239, 75 A.2d 496. A plaintiff may not allege one cause of action and recover upon another. Lundborg v.CT Page 4862Kovacs, 172 Conn. 229, 232-233, 374 A.2d 201 (1977). Therefore, for the plaintiff to prevail, he was bound to prove, as he has alleged in paragraph three of his complaint, that there was an agreement, express or implied, between Onofrio and him for the payment of a certain monthly rental. Because the plaintiff has not proven this allegation, judgment may enter for the defendants.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deluca-v-onofrio-no-spnh-9803-54307-apr-17-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack