Skip to main content
· 8/30/2022

Mention v. Kensington Square Apartments

Citations

  • 214 Conn. App. 720

Syllabus

The plaintiff tenant sought, inter alia, an order to compel the defendant to exterminate an infestation of insects and rodents in her leased premises, one of six rental units in a building for which the defendant is the landlord. The plaintiff, who was the recipient of a rent subsidy, first reported the infestation to the defendant and then contacted the munici- pal agency responsible for housing code enforcement in the city in which the premises was located. An inspector from the agency ordered the defendant to rid the premises of the infestation and issued a notice of compliance after the defendant treated the infestation. The plaintiff thereafter filed a complaint for housing code enforcement pursuant to the applicable statute (§ 47a-14h), alleging that the defendant violated the statute (§ 47a-7 (a) (1)) when it failed to exterminate the infestation in the premises, and she began paying her portion of the monthly rent to the clerk of the court pursuant to § 47a-14h. The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff had prevented and/or failed to prepare for its access to the premises in an attempt to debilitate and/ or thwart its ability to comply with the housing code enforcement orders. The trial court determined that the premises had been infested with insects and rodents for more than one year, the defendant's efforts to remediate the infestation had not been reasonable as, inter alia, other units within the building also remained infested, and the defendant had violated its duties as a landlord pursuant to § 47a-7 and the housing code. The court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her complaint and on the defendant's counterclaim and awarded the plain- tiff, inter alia, an abatement of any rent in arrearage and six months of prospective abatement of rent based on her share of the subsidized rent. Thereafter, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded as a matter of law that the def

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • plaintiffs motion to open judgment of family support magistrate not necessary because Superior Court has jurisdiction to modify family support magistrate’s child support order pursuant to § 46b-231 [q]
  • ‘‘ ‘noncompliance on the part of the parties made strict adherence to the terms of the [decree] impossible’ ’’
  • plaintiffs motion to open judgment of family support magistrate not necessary because Superior Court has jurisdiction to modify family support magistrate’s child support order pursuant to § 46b-231 [q]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Elgo; Cradle; Alexander

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.