Sullivan v. Nameaug Walk-in Medical Center
Opinion
In this certified appeal, the issue is whether General Statutes § 47a-23 (a)1 permits a com[214]*214mercial lessor to bring a summary process action to obtain possession of the property because of the lessee’s nonpayment of rent when due, even if the lease does not provide expressly for its termination on that ground. The Appellate Court held that the absence of such a clause in the lease precluded the action brought by the plaintiff, Martin J. Sullivan, to regain possession of the leased property from the defendant, Nameaug Walk-in Medical Center, P.C. Sullivan v. Nameaug Walk-in Medical Center, P.C., 35 Conn. App. 185, 189, 644 A.2d 398 (1994). We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to review the merits of the Appellate Court’s holding.2
After reviewing the briefs, the record and the arguments of counsel, we are persuaded that, in the circumstances of this case, we do not have an appropriate opportunity for a searching analysis of the relationship [215]*215between the terms of a commercial lease and the requirements of a statutory action for summary process under § 47a-23 (a). Accordingly, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed because certification was improvidently granted. See Packtor v. Seppala & AHO Construction Co., 231 Conn. 367, 370, 650 A.2d 534 (1994); L. & L. Builders, Inc. v. Parmelee, 221 Conn. 203, 206, 602 A.2d 1016 (1992); Shaham v. Capparelli, 219 Conn. 133, 135, 591 A.2d 1269 (1991); Lawler v. Lawler, 212 Conn. 117, 119, 561 A.2d 128 (1989).
The appeal is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
657 A.2d 639 (Sullivan v. Nameaug Walk-in Medical Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.