Rich-Taubman Associates v. LLC (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss dated June 7, 2010, in this pending Summary Process action.   The defendant alleges that on April 2, 2010, the landlord's letter requesting the defendant to vacate on or before April 17, 2010 constituted a lawful Notice to Quit which preceded the Notice to Quit dated April 17, 2010, requesting the defendant to vacate on or before April 25, 2010.   The defendant alleges that the letter of April 2, 2010, had the effect of converting the defendant's tenancy to a tenancy at sufferance, and that no rent was due at the time that the second Notice to quit was served.   As a result, the defendant argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction on the basis of nonpayment of rent.   This Court has perused the latter of April 2, 2010, and notes that it is entitled “Notice to Quit”, but was not served on the tenant by a Marshal in accordance with the statute, but only sent by certified mail.

The landlord opposes the Motion to Dismiss arguing that there is only one valid Notice to Quit which was served pursuant to statute.   The plaintiff alleges that the letter of April second could not constitute a valid Notice to Quit as it was not served pursuant to statute and that it did not terminate the lease and change the relationship of the parties to a tenancy at sufferance.   This Court agrees with the plaintiff's position and finds that there was only one valid Notice to Quit dated April 17, 2010.   The Court refers the parties here to Sandrew v. Pequot Drug, Inc., et al., 4 Conn.App. 627, 631, (1985), which stated:  “A Notice to Quit is the basis for the initiation of an action at law and, as such, it must conform to the statute.”   Also, referring to Vogel v. Bacus, 133 Conn. 95, 98, 48 A.2d 237 (1946).   Further, the Sandrew case stated:  “We have recognized the principle that, because of the summary nature of its remedy, the summary process statute must be narrowly construed and strictly followed.”  Id. 631.   In the Sandrew case, the letter dated September 14, 1983, provided:  “You are hereby advised that your landlord, Paul Sandrew, hereby terminates the lease of Pequot Drug, Inc. dba Montauk Pharmacy of the leasehold premises situated at 209 Montauk Avenue in New London.   The tenancy is terminated herewith.”

For the reasons stated above, the earlier letter in this instant case did not constitute a proper Notice to Quit;  was not served pursuant to statute, and did not terminate the lease.   Therefore, the defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

THE COURT

Grogins, JTR

Grogins, Jack L., J.T.R.