Kensington Square Ltd. I Ltd. v. Wilson, No. Spnh 9711-52871 (Mar. 27, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4036
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMarch 27, 1998
DocketNo. SPNH 9711-52871
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4036 (Kensington Square Ltd. I Ltd. v. Wilson, No. Spnh 9711-52871 (Mar. 27, 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
Kensington Square Ltd. I Ltd. v. Wilson, No. Spnh 9711-52871 (Mar. 27, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4036 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendants' motion to strike does not give due regard to the standard of review which this court is duty-bound to follow. "In deciding . . . a motion to strike . . . a trial court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint; Blancato v.Feldspar Corporation, 203 Conn. 34, 36, 522 A.2d 1235 (1987);DeMello v. Plainville, 170 Conn. 675, 677, 368 A.2d 71 (1976); and `cannot be aided by the assumption of any facts not therein alleged.' Fraser v. Henninger, 173 Conn. 52, 60, 376 A.2d 406 (1977); Wexler Construction Co. Housing Authority, 144 Conn. 187,194, 128 A.2d 540 (1956)." Liljedahl Bros., Inc. v. Grigsby,215 Conn. 345, 348-349, 576 A.2d 1491 (1990). Moreover, "[t]he allegations of the pleading involved are entitled to the same CT Page 4037 favorable construction a trier would be required to give in admitting evidence under them and if the facts provable under its allegations would support a defense or a cause of action, the motion to strike must fail. Alarm Applications Co. v. SimsburyVolunteer Fire Co., supra." Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., 196 Conn. 91,108-109, 491 A.2d 368 (1985); see LeConche v. Elligers,215 Conn. 701, 716, 579 A.2d 11 (1990) ("Pleadings should be read broadly and realistically, and not narrowly and technically."). Construing the paragraph 3 of the plaintiff's complaint in this manner, the defendants named therein may be deemed persons entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit or premises to the exclusion of others and therefore tenants, as defined in General Statutes § 47a-1(1). Evidence could establish that the documents adverted to in that paragraph are among the contract documents. Notably, paragraph 13 of the lease provides, inter alia: "The Tenant agrees to permit other individuals to reside in the unit only after obtaining the prior written approval of the Landlord." Paragraph 16a.[2] of the lease provides: "If any of the following changes occur, the tenant agrees to advise the Landlord immediately . . . An adult member to the household who was reported as unemployed on the most recent certification or recertification obtains employment." (Emphasis added.)

Secondly, General Statutes § 47a-1(1) defines "tenant" to be such "as is otherwise defined by law." Under the common law definition of "tenant" in Southington v. Francis, 159 Conn. 64, 71,266 A.2d 387 (1970), the defendants may be defined as tenants simply by being holders or possessors of premises.

The motion to strike is denied.

Bruce L. Levi Judge of the Superior Court

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

Related

Fraser v. Henninger
376 A.2d 406 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1977)
Town of Southington v. Francis
266 A.2d 387 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1970)
DeMello v. Town of Plainville
368 A.2d 71 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1976)
Wexler Construction Co. v. Housing Authority
128 A.2d 540 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1956)
Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.
491 A.2d 368 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Blancato v. Feldspar Corp.
522 A.2d 1235 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1987)
Liljedahl Bros. v. Grigsby
576 A.2d 149 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1990)
LeConche v. Elligers
579 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kensington-square-ltd-i-ltd-v-wilson-no-spnh-9711-52871-mar-27-connsuperct-1998.