Grant v. Urban Developers, LLC, No. CVH-514 (Conn. Super. 5/24/2006)
| Decision Date | 24 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. CVH-514,CVH-514 |
| Parties | Anthony W. Grant v. Urban Developers, LLC Opinion No.: 93612 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
On January 23, 2006, Anthony W. Grant, hereinafter ("Tenant"), initiated a tenant complaint action. Several weeks later, on March 8, 2006, Urban Developers, LLC, hereinafter ("Landlord"), filed a summary process action based on lapse of time. The cases were consolidated and were tried on April 11, 12 and 19, 2006. The Tenant appeared pro se; the Landlord was represented by counsel.1
"It is well established that in cases tried before courts, trial judges are the sole arbiters of the credibility of witnesses and it is they who determine the weight to be given specific testimony . . . It is the quintessential function of the fact finder to reject or accept certain evidence . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 540, 744 A.2d 915 (2000). "The sifting and weighing of evidence is peculiarly the function of the trier [of fact]." Smith v. Smith, 183 Conn. 121, 123, 438 A.2d 842 (1981). "[N]othing in our law is more elementary than that the trier [of fact] is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be accorded to their testimony." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Toffolon v. Avon, 173 Conn. 525, 530, 378 A.2d 580 (1977). "The trier is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony offered by either party." Smith v. Smith, supra, 183 Conn. 123. "That determination of credibility is a function of the trial court." Heritage Square, LLC v. Eoanou, 61 Conn.App. 329, 333, 763 A.2d 199 (2001). The trial court's function as the fact finder "is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Christine F., 6 Conn.App. 360, 366, 505 A.2d 734, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 808, 508 A.2d 769 (1986).
Gulycz v. Stop & Shop Cos., 29 Conn.App. 519, 523, 615 A.2d 1087 (1992).
The standard of proof in civil actions, a fair preponderance of the evidence, is "properly defined as the better evidence, the evidence having the greater weight, the more convincing force in your mind." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390, 394, 440 A.2d 952 (1981);2 Failure of the plaintiff to establish any of the necessary elements, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, results in judgment for the defendant. Gulycz v. Stop & Shop Cos., supra, 29 Conn.App. 523.
The Court finds the following facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
The Landlord is the owner of the property at 105 Sherbrooke Avenue, Apt. 24, Hartford, Connecticut. On April 1, 2002, the parties entered into a written lease agreement for a one-year term. After the term expired, the Tenant continued on a month-to-month basis. Paragraph 1(a) of the lease states: "If the Resident continues occupancy of the premises beyond the original term of the lease, the Resident shall continue in occupancy, on the same terms and conditions as the original lease, subject to monthly rent and other fee modifications . . ."
A portion of the Tenant's rent is paid by Section 8. As of April 1, 2006, the rent/use and occupancy is $600. Since filing the tenant complaint action, the Tenant has deposited with the Court his portion of the rent, $429. Section 8 has continued to pay the balance of the rent/use and occupancy.
The Tenant moved into the premises on or about April 1, 2002. On or about July 23, 2002, the Tenant changed the lock on his door after he thought an intruder entered his apartment. The Tenant has refused to give the Landlord a key to the apartment because he blamed the Landlord for allowing someone to gain access to his apartment.
In August 2005, on a Friday night, a pipe in the ceiling of the Tenant's apartment burst and spewed sewage on the Tenant and throughout the apartment. The broken pipe caused significant damage to the Tenant's personal property as well as the premises. After the pipe broke, the Tenant was unable to reach the Landlord. He apparently called the Landlord's fax number by mistake. The Tenant talked to the superintendent of the building. But the super did not work on weekends and refused to help. The Tenant then called the fire department which came and turned off the water.
The Tenant claimed that the Landlord was negligent in not fixing the pipe. The Tenant had complained about a leaking pipe to the Landlord and the housing authority for sometime before the pipe burst. He testified that the Landlord just painted over the water stain. The Landlord testified that a drain pipe from the upstairs apartment cracked and leaked into the Tenant's apartment. A maintenance person and then a plumber worked to repair the damage. The repairs took several months to complete. The parties disagree as to the reasons for the delay. The Tenant blamed the Landlord for using unqualified contractors and not making adequate repairs. The Landlord claimed the Tenant denied the Landlord reasonable access to the premises to make the repairs.
In August 2005 and September 2005, the apartment was inspected for Section 8 purposes. On September 30, 2005, Hartford Housing Authority, Section 8 sent out a notice that the rental unit failed inspection. The Landlord testified that the repairs were completed by October 21, 2005. The rent was abated for twenty days in October 2005.
On November 7, 2005, Kevin Mattia, the Hartford Public Health Sanitarian, issued a letter to the Tenant which states as follows:
On October 17, 2005, the Landlord served a notice to quit based on nonpayment of rent. That case was subsequently withdrawn on January 17, 2006. On February 24, 2006, the Tenant was served with the instant notice to quit based on lapse of time. The Tenant remains in possession of the premises. The Tenant testified that he did not want to stay in the apartment but needed more time to move out.
The Landlord testified that the parties' relationship has broken down to the point where it is very difficult for them to work together. The Tenant has not complied with the lease and the rules by changing the lock on the apartment door and not giving the landlord a key. In 2004, the Landlord sent a letter to the Tenant requesting a key without success. The Landlord also claimed that the Tenant has violated the lease by denying the Landlord reasonable access to the apartment to make repairs.
The Court will provide additional facts, as needed.
The remedies available to a tenant in the event of the landlord's breach of his statutory duties include a tenant complaint action to compel the landlord to perform his legal duties. Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn.App. 444, 449, 547 A.2d 935 (1988).
Pursuant to General Statutes §47a-14h, a tenant may initiate an action to compel the landlord to meet his/her statutory responsibilities under General Statutes §47a-7.3 The tenant has the burden of proof in a tenant complaint case, also referred to as a housing code enforcement action or payment into court action. The essential elements of the case are as follows: (1) The plaintiff is a tenant at the premises; (2) The defendant is the landlord of the premises; (3) The parties entered into an oral/written lease agreement for a term of one week/month/year; (4) The tenant pays an agreed-upon rent by a certain date and the rent has been paid to the landlord; (5) At least twenty-one days prior to the date on which the complaint is filed, the tenant made a complaint concerning the premises to the municipal agency, in the municipality where the premises are located, responsible for enforcement of the housing code or, if no housing code exists, of the public health code, or to the agency responsible for enforcement of the code or ordinance alleged to have been violated, or toanother municipal agency which referred such complaint to the municipal agency responsible for enforcement of such code or ordinance; (6) The tenant has not been served with a notice to quit based upon nonpayment of rent prior to the institution of this action, and has not been served with a notice to quit based on any other ground prior to his making the complaint, provided any such notice to quit is still effective; (7) The landlord has failed to perform his/her legal duty to maintain the premises under 47a-7, in the following ways (list violations). (Emphasis added.)
Pursuant to §47a-14h(e), the tenant may seek and the court may order interim or final relief including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) An order compelling the landlord to comply with his duties under local, state or federal law; (2) an order appointing a receiver to collect rent or to correct conditions in the property which violate...
To continue reading
Request your trial