Housing Authority v. Vazquez, No. Spm-Cv95-0250565s (Nov. 22, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13259
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedNovember 22, 1995
DocketNo. SPM-CV95-0250565S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13259 (Housing Authority v. Vazquez, No. Spm-Cv95-0250565s (Nov. 22, 1995)) 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
Housing Authority v. Vazquez, No. Spm-Cv95-0250565s (Nov. 22, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13259 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]Order (102) After hearing held on defendant's motion to dismiss, it is hereby Ordered: granted, for the following reasons:

A notice to quit pursuant to statute is the basis for the inauguration of a summary process action. Webb v. Ambler,125 Conn. 543, 552-53 (1939). The action itself must be preceded by the statutorily required notice to quit. Housing Authority v.Hird, 13 Conn. App. 150, 155 (1988); Sec. 47a-23 (a), Conn. Gen. Stat; and the language of the notice must substantially comply with the statutorily prescribed form. Sandrew v. Pequot Drug,Inc., 4 Conn. App. 627, 632 (1985); Sec. 47a-23 (b), Conn. Gen. Stat.

In the instant case, in addition to the statutory language, the notice contained the following invitation: CT Page 13260

"If you should have any questions regarding the above, or would like a hearing on this matter, please contact Housing Authority Management, or contact [plaintiff's attorney]."

The language (above) is not unlike that considered by the Sandrew court, Id. 632 n. 7. Although that language appeared in a letter, the court concluded that it "negated the effect of a notice to quit, at least until the further negotiations which that letter invited had been concluded."

In order to terminate a tenant's leasehold interest, a notice to quit must set forth in definite and unequivocal terms what is clearly the landlord's intent. See e.g., Chapel-High Corporationv. Cavallaro, 141 Conn. 407, 411 (1954); Mayron's Bake Shop, Inc.v. Arrow Stores, Inc., 149 Conn. 149, 156 (1961). It is the court's finding that the added language above set forth rendered the notice to quit equivocal and unclear, thereby negating its intended effect.

Gaffney, J.

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

Related

Mayron's Bake Shops, Inc. v. Arrow Stores, Inc.
176 A.2d 574 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1961)
Webb v. Ambler
7 A.2d 228 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1939)
Chapel-High Corp. v. Cavallaro
106 A.2d 720 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1954)
Sandrew v. Pequot Drug, Inc.
495 A.2d 1127 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1985)
Housing Authority of East Hartford v. Hird
535 A.2d 377 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/housing-authority-v-vazquez-no-spm-cv95-0250565s-nov-22-1995-connsuperct-1995.