Housing Authority of City of New Haven v. Alprovis
| Decision Date | 27 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 79838,79838 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN v. Harold E. ALPROVIS et al. |
Stoddard, Persky, Eagan & Cobey, New Haven, for plaintiff.
George W. Crawford, Corp. Counsel, New Haven, for defendants.
This is an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant Alprovis as judge of the Municipal Court of the city of New Haven to strike from an order dated April 8, 1954, granting the plaintiff's motion for an execution, that part thereof which orders that issuance of the execution be stayed until June 30, 1954, and an order directing the defendant Alprovis as such judge and the defendant Alderman as clerk of the said court to issue an execution in connection with a summary process action brought by the plaintiff against one Joseph T. Causgrove. The complaint alleges that on September 29, 1953, the plaintiff brought a summary process action against Joseph T. Causgrove to obtain possession of premises leased by it to said Causgrove and that on October 1, 1953, the plaintiff and Causgrove entered into a stipulation for judgment and stay of execution to December 31, 1953. The stipulation, which is made a part of the complaint, provides that judgment be entered in said action forthwith against the defendant and for the plaintiff to recover possession of the premises described in the complaint and for costs. Under the stipulation the plaintiff agreed not to procure or levy execution upon said judgment for possession of said premises prior to January 1, 1954, provided the defendant performed certain promises and agreements contained in said stipulation.
On October 15, 1953, the Municipal Court of the city of New Haven entered judgment in said summary process action for the plaintiff to recover possession of said premises in accordance with said stipulation. In January, 1954, and again in February, 1954, and again on March 2, 1954, the plaintiff extended the time fixed in said stipulation for the surrender of said premises to the plaintiff to January 31, 1954, February 28, 1954, and March 31, 1954, respectively. Thereafter the plaintiff moved the Municipal Court of New Haven to order issuance of an execution on said judgment. On April 8, 1954, after a hearing, the defendant Alprovis, as judge of said court, entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion for execution on said judgment but directed that the issuance of said execution be stayed until June 30, 1954.
The defendants demur to the plaintiff's complaint and application on the ground that the defendant Alprovis, in his capacity as a judge of the Municipal Court of the city of New Haven, in granting the plaintiff's motion for execution but directing stay of the same until June 30, 1954, was not performing a ministerial act; that the granting of said motion and directing said stay was a judicial function involving the exercise of a discretion inherent in the nature of the action; and that the orders granting the plaintiff's motion for the execution and directing a stay thereof are inseverable parts of one judicial act involving the exercise of discretion.
The demurrer raises the question as to whether the issuance of an execution in connection with or following a judgment for possession under our statutes governing summary process actions is one involving the exercise of judgment or discretion, or whether it is purely a ministerial act which can be enforced by a writ of mandamus.
The action of summary process is a special statutory proceeding. It is intended to provide a remedy that will enable landlords to obtain possession of leased premises without suffering the delay, loss and expense to which, under the common law actions, they might be subjected by tenants wrongfully holding over their premises. The proceeding is not only intended to be summary but conclusive. Atlantic Refining Co. v. O'Keefe, 131 Conn. 528, 530, 41 A.2d 109. Our court has held that where the defendant has equitable grounds to stay summary process proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prevedini v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...A.2d 891; without suffering the delay, loss and expense to which he may be subjected under a common-law action. Housing Authority v. Alprovis, 19 Conn.Sup. 37, 39, 109 A.2d 884. The process is intended to be summary and is designed to provide an expeditious remedy to the landlord seeking po......
-
Urban v. Prims
...164 Conn. 287, 292, 320 A.2d 797; Jo-Mark Sand & Gravel Co. v. Pantanella, 139 Conn. 598, 600-601, 96 A.2d 217; Housing Authority v. Alprovis, 19 Conn.Sup. 37, 39, 109 A.2d 884; Todd v. LaMar, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 528, 529, 277 A.2d 724; Pollard v. Pollard, 1 Conn.Cir.Ct. 143, 146-47, 23 Conn.Sup......
-
HUD/Barbour-Waverly v. Wilson
...without suffering the delay, loss and expense to which he may be subjected under a common-law action. Housing Authority v. Alprovis, 19 Conn.Supp. 37, 39, 109 A.2d 884 [1954]. The process is intended to be summary and is designed to provide an expeditious remedy to the landlord seeking poss......
-
Wolf v. Fuller, CV
...of the lease without the delay, loss and expense experienced under the common-law remedy of eviction. Housing Authority v. Alprovis, 19 Conn.Sup. 37, 39, 109 A.2d 884; Dreifuss v. World Art Group, Inc., 6 Conn.Cir. 309, 312, 272 A.2d 144. A requirement that the tenant pay or provide for the......