Jorge Bustamonte v. Hector Diaz et al. (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a summary process action based on lapse of time.   The plaintiff, Jorge Bustamonte, seeks to recover possession of 15 McKinley Street, Hartford, CT (the “Premises”) from the defendants Hector Diaz and Clara Amadeo.   A court trial was held on October 6, 2009, and when not concluded by the end of the day, was continued to October 16, 2009.   The plaintiff was self-represented.   The defendants were represented by counsel.   The defendant's counsel filed a motion for continuance due to a scheduling conflict which was granted without the consent of the plaintiff.   The continued trial was heard on November 4, 2009.   The Spanish language interpreter was present and assisted the plaintiff and the defendant, Hector Diaz.

The court has weighed all the evidence and assessed the testimony and credibility of the witnesses.   Based on the evidence and testimony, the court finds the following facts and reaches the conclusions set forth herein.

The plaintiff landlord resides in the first floor of the two-family building of which the premises are a part.   The parties entered into a lease agreement written in Spanish having a one-year term which ended in June 2009.   In July 2009, the plaintiff served the defendants with a notice to quit based on lapse of time which was followed by a summons and complaint brought for the same reason.

The defendants have asserted as a special defense that the plaintiff has brought this summary process action because the defendant, Clara Amadeo, contacted public officials with regard to complaints about the premises.

Clara Amadeo testified that she complained to the City of Hartford concerning the condition of the Premises at the end of March 2009.   The City of Hartford Housing Code Inspector, Rochelle Tinsley, testified that she inspected the Premises and described it as a “nice unit.”   Although she found the apartment did not have a dead bolt lock and the lighting on the rear stairway was not adequate, Tinsley said that the conditions she found during her inspection would not affect habitability.

Although § 47a-20 of the Connecticut General Statutes protects a tenant from a retaliatory eviction brought within six months after a tenant makes a good faith complaint concerning the conditions of a dwelling unit to a landlord or a public agency, the rule is not absolute.  “[W]e hold that the protection afforded by § 47a-20(3) is not invoked unless the repair requested is one which is necessary to maintain the leased premises in a fit and habitable state.”  Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn.App. 444, 454, 547 A.2d 935 (1988).

“Violations of the code do not, per se, mandate a finding of uninhabitability.   There must be either a series of violations or a violation so substantial that continued occupancy would constitute a hazard to the safety and welfare of the occupants.”   Rosow v. Gonzalez, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. H 79 0501528 (July 5, 1979, Spada, J.).  “Whether or not the defect complained of goes to the tenantability of the property is a question of fact to be determined by the trier.”  Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn.App. 444, 454.   The court finds that the defendants have not sustained the burden of proof that the repairs requested were necessary to maintain the leased premises in a fit and habitable condition.

Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff has proven all the elements of his summary process action based on the ground of lapse of time by a preponderance of the evidence, and judgment of possession of the leased premises is entered in favor of the plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Gilligan, J.

Gilligan, Robert G., J.