DocketNumber: No. CV SPNH 0101-65831
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 6637
Judges: DEVLIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/30/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
A trial on this matter was conducted on May 23 and May 24, 2001. Based upon the evidence produced at trial together with the full record in this case, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
2. On or about October 12, 2000, the oral lease was amended to change CT Page 6638 the room from Room 5 to Room 9 and the monthly fee was changed to $400.00 payable in weekly installments of $100.00 to be paid in each of the first four weeks of any monthly period no later than Friday of each week.
3. The Tenant took possession of Room 5 and later Room 9, and continues to possess Room 9 to the present.
4. The lease for Room 9 was for a term ending January 31, 2001.
5. On November 10, 2000, the Landlord served the Tenant with a Notice to Quit seeking possession or Room 9 based on lapse of time. The Tenant did not quit possession and the Landlord commenced a summary process action known as The Graduate Club Association v. Carl Mendlow, docket number SPNH 0011-6529 7NH (hereinafter referred to as the first summary process action). The Tenant moved to dismiss asserting that the parties had agreed to a lease term until the end of January 2001. On December 14, 2000, the court (Hadden, J.) granted the Tenant's motion to dismiss.
6. The Notice to Quit served on November 10, 2000 did not mention use and occupancy payments and no motion for use and occupancy payments was made in connection with the first summary process action. During the month of November, the Tenant tendered rent money to the Landlord that was refused based on the pendency of the first summary process action.
7. On December 14, 2000, after the dismissal of the first summary process action based on a finding that the lease term had not lapsed, the Landlord asserted its claim for all rent due — including the period from November 12, 2000 to December 12, 2000.
8. On December 22, 2000, the Tenant made a payment to the Landlord of $402.00. The Landlord applied this payment to rent due for the month of November 2000.
9. On January 2, 2001, the Landlord terminated the lease with the Tenant by serving a Notice to Quit. The Notice to Quit stated that any payments made by the Tenant after January 2, 2001 would be accepted for use and occupancy only.
10. On January 2, 2001, the Tenant was delinquent in rent having failed to pay rent for the weeks ending Friday, December 15, December 22, and December 29.
11. From sometime in September, 2000 to October 30, 2000, the Tenant chose to use the dining facilities at the Graduate Club. The agreement of the parties was that payment for food, gratuities and tax was due and owing at the end of each month. The Landlord properly applied the CT Page 6639 Tenant's food payments for the outstanding balance on food.
The Tenant relies on Mayron's Bake Shops, Inc. v. Arrow Stores, Inc.,
The Tenant's claim that the payment made in December had to be applied to the December rent is based on an incorrect construction of the lease. Were the lease for Room 9 to be an oral month to month lease, a rent payment tendered in one month would have to be applied to that month's tenancy. Kligerman v. Robinson,
The court also rejects the Tenant's claim that by applying the December payment to the November rent, the Landlord had changed the payment agreement such that payment in arrears was permitted. The Landlord's intent was consistently to collect the rent when due in accordance with the weekly payment scheme agreed to in September.
In sum, the court rejects all of the Tenant's payment defenses and finds that rental payments due in December, 2000 were not made.
Having resolved the payment issue, the Tenant's remaining special defenses, although numerous, require little discussion.
The Tenant's claim for retaliatory eviction is based on an incident on October 30, 2000 where the club manager called the New Haven Police Department because of concerns arising from the Tenant's irrational behavior. The court finds that the manager's actions were fully justified and that such action was in no way intended to interfere with the Tenant's pending litigation in federal court.
The Tenant's claim of an unlawful conspiracy among twenty-one landlords to deprive him of housing is not proven as to the Landlord. The court credits the testimony of the Graduate Club employees that they had no communication with or knowledge concerning the Tenant's prior landlords, employers or litigation.
The Tenant's claim of illegal entry by the police on October 30, 2000, is not proven and not relevant to the issues in the present case.
The Tenant's claim of constructive eviction based on his loss of dining privileges after the October 30, 2000 incident is not proven. The lease was for the room and although dining privileges were initially extended, the Graduate Club's decision to withdraw them did not constructively evict the Tenant. CT Page 6641
The Tenant's claim of a nationwide employment boycott is rejected as not relevant.
The Tenant's claim of duress is not relevant to this action based on nonpayment of rent. Similarly, the Tenant's claim of unconscionability is likewise not relevant to the present case. Finally, the Tenant's claims of fraud, CUTPA, public policy, subject matter jurisdiction, and apportionment of liability are rejected as not proven and largely irrelevant. The court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
Judgment of possession shall enter in favor of the Landlord for Room 9 of the Graduate Club, 155 Elm Street, New Haven, Connecticut.
So Ordered at New Haven, Connecticut this 30th day of May, 2001.
Devlin, J.