DocketNumber: No. 81500
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 8541, 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 608
Judges: DiPENTIMA, J.
Filed Date: 7/17/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The Notice to Quit was served on May 1, 1995 specifying lapse of time as the reason for termination and providing, June 1, 1995 as the terminal date of possession. The summons and complaint which included a return date of June 8, 1995, were served on the defendant on June 2, 1995 and returned to court on June 5, 19951. The summons and complaint were signed by a Commissioner of the Superior Court on May 31, 1995.
A motion to strike tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint. P.B. § 154. Here the defendant's claim is a jurisdictional one peculiar to summary process proceedings. Accordingly, since this issue is one of subject matter jurisdiction, the court will treat the motion as a motion to dismiss. P.B. § 145.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff should not have signed the summons and complaint prior to the date provided in the notice to quit. While neither party cited it, C.G.S. §
(a) If, at the expiration of the five days [under C.G.S. §
47a-23 (a)] the lessee or occupant neglects or refuses to quit possession or occupancy of the premises, any commissioner of the superior court may issue a writ, summons and complaint which shall be in the form and nature of any ordinary writ, summons and complaint in a civil process, but which shall set forth facts justifying a judgment for, immediate possession or occupancy of the premises and make a claim for possession or occupancy of the premises.
[Italics added]
Both parties focus on the commencement of this suit as the determinative factor. However, the statute refers to the issuance of the writ, summons and complaint.2 They are distinct occurrences. As the plaintiff noted, an action commences upon service on the defendant, not upon the issuance of the summons and complaint. Broderick v. Jackman,
This statutory provision has been interpreted twice in this CT Page 8543 court. In Interfaith Housing v. Hone, H-24 (1979) (O'Neill, B., J.), the court found that a writ dated the same day as the termination day on the notice but served the day after did not comply with the statute: "Section
This failure to comply with C.G.S. §
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the case is dismissed.