DocketNumber: No. 81161
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7429
Judges: DIPENTIMA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 6/20/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The Notice to Quit, served on April 11, 1995, with a termination date of April 30, 1995 listed the following as reasons for termination of lease:
a)Lapse of time
b)Serious nuisance — Connecticut General Statutes section
The complaint alleges in ¶ 4:
4. The lease expired on April 30, 1995, and the defendant has kept numerous cats on the premises and failed to clean and remove cat feces from the unit and the common hallway creating a serious nuisance as set forth in Connecticut General Statutes Section
47a-15 and Section21-80 .
C.G.S. §
with §
if there is a material noncompliance with section
The statute then provides for a cure by the tenant within twenty one days of the notice. However, if the conduct constitutes a serious nuisance, no notice prior to termination is required. The statute defines such conduct:
For the purposes of this section, "serious nuisance" means (A) inflicting bodily harm upon another tenant or the landlord or threatening to inflict such harm with the present ability to effect the harm and under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that such threat will be carried out, (B) substantial and wilful destruction of part of the dwelling unit or premises, (C) conduct which presents an immediate and serious danger to the safety of other tenants or the landlord, or (D) using the premises for prostitution or the illegal sale of drugs.
The plaintiff argues that, under the provisions of the above statute, ¶ 4 of the complaint does not allege serious nuisance so that a Kapa notice is required. The court's concern with the lack of specificity in the Notice to Quit as to the nature of the serious nuisance coupled with the defendant's argument leads to the conclusion that the plaintiffs cause of action grounded on serious nuisance must be dismissed. The allegations of ¶ 4 specify conduct, which if a pretermination notice had been sent, could have been remedied by the defendant prior to the action. "[T]he purpose of the statute is to abate the nuisance by providing the tenant with one opportunity to eliminate the cause of the nuisance. This purpose is most effectively served by requiring compliance with
There are four types of serious nuisance listed in the statute. At the very least, the plaintiff should specify which type in his notice to quit. And, as is likely in this case, he wishes to proceed under (C)type of serious nuisance claim, the notice to quit should specify the conduct which presents an immediate and serious danger to the safety of other tenants or the landlord.
The allegations contained in the complaint do not rise to the level of serious nuisance so that a pretermination notice was CT Page 7432 required under §
For the above reasons, the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to comply strictly with the statutory provisions and accordingly the motion to dismiss the action on the ground of serious nuisance is granted.2
Alexandra Davis DiPentima, Judge