Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Veneri

• Decision Date: 09 July 1968
• Citation: 157 Conn. 20,244 A.2d 401
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES of the State of Connecticut. v. Stefano VENERI et al.

Page 401

244 A.2d 401

157 Conn. 20

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES of the State of Connecticut. v. Stefano VENERI et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

July 9, 1968.

David B. Beizer, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Bernard F. McGovern, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on the brief, Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., and F. Michael Ahern, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant (plaintiff).

Timothy C. Moynahan, Waterbury, for appellees (defendants).

Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.

THIM, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff instituted the present action alleging that the defendants, husband and wife, in violation of General Statutes § 53-35, as amended by No. 177, § 1, of the 1967 Public Acts, refused to rent an apartment unit to Bert T. Pittman because he is a Negro. Pursuant to General Statutes § 53-36a, as amended by No. 177, § 2, of the 1967 Public Acts, the plaintiff sought to have the defendants temporarily and permanently enjoined from renting the apartment unit to anyone other than Pittman. The trial court granted the temporary injunction but subsequently rendered judgment denying the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction. The plaintiff has appealed to this court directly. General Statutes § 53-36b, as amended by Public Acts 1967, No. 177, § 3.

The case is submitted on a stipulation of facts which reveals the following: The defendants, Stefano and Giovannina Veneri, are the joint owners of a three-family apartment house in Waterbury. On January 8, 1968, an advertisement appeared in a Waterbury newspaper that an apartment unit in the defendants' building was available for rent. Pittman called the telephone number listed in the advertisement and made arrangements with Mrs. Veneri, the defendant wife, to see the apartment. At approximately 1 p.m. on January 9, 1968, Pittman met Mrs. Veneri at the apartment building and was told by her that the apartment unit had been rented. Pittman never saw or spoke to the defendant husband. Five hours after Pittman had been told that the apartment unit had been rented. Mrs. Veneri informed another caller that the unit was still available. At 7:30 p.m. on January 9, 1968, two white persons referred to in the stipulation as 'testers,' were shown the apartment unit by Mrs. Veneri. While she was showing them the apartment unit Mrs. Veneri made several deprecatory remarks about Negroes. The defendant husband was present during parts of the conversation which his wife was having with the two testers who were viewing the apartment, but he remained silent. Mrs. Veneri agreed to rent to apartment to the two testers. Although her husband had not agreed to the rental, Mrs. Veneri accepted a rent deposit and signed his name to a receipt.

On the basis of the aforementioned facts, the trial court concluded that Mrs. Veneri had discriminated against Pittman because of his color but that in so doing she was not acting as her husband's agent. The court also concluded that Mrs. Veneri was not acting as her husband's agent for the purpose of renting the apartment unit. It determined that it could not permanently enjoin the defendant husband, and it also decided that it could not enjoin Mrs. Veneri, even though she had discriminated against Pittman. The court reasoned that, because the apartment building was jointly owned, it would be impossible to enjoin only one of the joint owners thereof.

The plaintiff claims the court erred in concluding that Mrs. Veneri was not acting as her husband's agent in renting the apartment unit. Although the plaintiff concedes that there was no proof that Mrs. Veneri had the actual authority to act as her husband's agent in renting the unit, it claims, nonetheless, that she had the apparent authority to do so.

The conclusion of the court that Mrs. Veneri was not her husband's agent in renting the apartment unit must stand unless it is legally or logically inconsistent with the facts or unless it involves the application of an erroneous rule of law material to the case. Fritz v. Mazurek, 156 Conn. 244, A.2d 368. As we have noted, the plaintiff maintains that the facts demonstrate that Mrs. Veneri had the apparent authority to act on behalf of her husband in renting the apartment unit. 'Apparent authority is that semblance of authority which a principal, through...