[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDERS
The motion to dismiss is denied. While the issue is troubling with respect to the second ground of that motion, I do not believe it would be advisable for this trial court to followIntertown Realty Co. v. Reddick, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain, No. SPH 9011-58167 (1991), in view of the plaintiff's facial compliance with General Statutes § 47a-23, in the absence of any appellate linchpin on which to rest a rule of law against a "laundry list" notice to quit.
The motion for use and occupancy is granted in the amount of $500.00 per month, payable into Court in good funds on or before March 27, 1997 and the 27th of each month thereafter during the pending of this case.