· 8/26/2025

Housing Authority v. Cyr

Citations

  • 234 Conn. App. 527

Syllabus

The plaintiff housing authority appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing its summary process action against the defendant tenant. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly dismissed the action after concluding that the pretermination notice, also known as a Kapa notice, and the notice to quit were both invalid and, therefore, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Held: The trial court improperly determined that the Kapa notice sent to the defendant was invalid on the basis that the notice alleged conduct constitut- ing serious nuisance that had occurred one year prior to its issuance, as there was no time requirement contained in the language of the statute (§ 47a-15) governing the form of a Kapa notice. The trial court improperly determined that the Kapa notice sent to the defendant was invalid because it failed to refer to specific provisions of the lease or the statutory sections that had been violated as a result of the conduct alleged in the notice, as such specificity was not required pursuant to § 47a-15 or our case law and the notice identified eight specific instances of conduct by the defendant that constituted violations of the lease, the plaintiff's rules and regulations, and his obligations as a tenant pursuant to statute (§ 47a-11), and amounted to a nuisance, which was sufficient to inform the defendant and protect against premature, discriminatory, or arbitrary eviction. The trial court improperly determined that the notice to quit was invalid or defective and, therefore, deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction, as the notice sufficiently tracked the language of the relevant statute (§ 47a- 23 (a) and (b)) and informed the defendant of the reasons for the notice to quit by setting forth specific instances of his conduct. The trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the defendant's alternative argument that the plaintiff, which the defendant asserts was a

Judges: Elgo; Moll; Harper

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.