DocketNumber: No. CVNH 7907
Citation Numbers: 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2300
Judges: LEVIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/29/1997
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The complaint alleges that the parties entered into the lease agreement on June 18, 1995. A copy of the lease is an exhibit to the complaint. The lease alleges that it is a month to month lease beginning "8/10/95". The monthly rental is $1050.00. The complaint alleges that the "[d]efendant failed to pay the rent due under the lease in the amount of $2,825.40 and it remains unpaid to the date hereof exclusive of interest." This allegation has never been amended.
"Practice Book § 375 provides that, upon a default, a plaintiff can have no greater relief than that demanded in his complaint. It is still the law that the right of the plaintiff to recover is limited by the allegations of the complaint. Strimiskav. Yates,
At the inception of the hearing in damages, the plaintiff offered his affidavit in which he averred that "Rent/Use and Occupancy" amounted to $5,775.00 and that the credit for payments and the security deposit totalled $3,365.47. The plaintiff then was sworn and testified, inter alia that (1) there were many months that the defendant did not pay rent; (2) the defendant was chronically late in paying the rent; (3) since June 18, 1995 there were no months when the defendant did not pay rent; (4) there were two months that the defendant did not pay rent.
Here, the complaint alleges one amount of rent due and owing, the plaintiff's affidavit alleges another amount, and the plaintiff's testimony suggests yet another sum. While a default conclusively establishes a defendant's liability; People's Bankv. Horesco,
Having weighed the evidence in the context of Practice Book § 375, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
BY THE COURT
Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court