City of Bridgeport v. Barbour-Daniel Electronics, Inc.
Connecticut Appellate Court
1DissentBorden, J.
I agree with the majority that this appeal presents two questions: (1) whether the plaintiffs defective notice to quit nonetheless created a tenancy at sufferance; and (2) if so, whether a summary process action may be maintained for a tenant’s failure to make use and occupancy payments to its landlord. The majority answers the first question in the negative, and thus does not reach the second except by way of dictum. See footnote 7, supra. I answer the first question in the affirmative and, reaching the second on its merits, agree with the majority’s dictum that the proper answer to the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Welk v. BidwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
- Mayron's Bake Shops, Inc. v. Arrow Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- Jefferson Garden Associates v. GreeneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Jo-Mark Sand & Gravel Co. v. PantanellaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Thompson v. CoeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.