Marian Dziadosz et al. v. Stephanie Green et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a summary process action based on non-payment of rent on an oral one-year lease.   On October 28, 2010, the parties appeared before this Court for trial on the complaint.   The defendants allege as a special defense that no rent was due based on housing and building code violations.   The defendants also allege retaliatory eviction based on the defendants complaints to public agencies about conditions in the premises.   The plaintiff seeks to recover possession of 23 Horace Street, 1S, New Britain, Connecticut.

The court has weighed all the evidence and assessed the testimony and credibility of the witnesses and reaches the conclusions set forth herein by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Since 2008, the defendants have resided at the subject premises.   Most recently, on or about February 11, 2010, the parties entered into an oral one-year lease for the subject premises.   The defendants failed to make the monthly rental payments of six hundred fifty dollars ($650.00), which were due on June 1, 2010, and July 1, 2010.   On July 21, 2010, the plaintiff had a Notice to Quit Possession of the subject premises served on the defendants to vacate the premises on or before July 27, 2010.   As of the time of trial, the defendants remain in possession of the subject premises.   In their answer and special defenses, the defendants do not claim to have either paid or offered to pay the rent at issue.   The court finds that the plaintiff has proved nonpayment of rent by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

The defendants testified that there was a number of housing code violations about which they had made several complaints to the plaintiff over a period of approximately five months, beginning in June 2010.   The defendants testified and pled in their special defenses that they withheld their June and July monthly rental payments due to the alleged violations.   The plaintiff testified credibly that the defendants were in arrears several months on their rent prior to June 2010.   The defendants testified that they made complaints to the plaintiff prior to service of the notice to quit.   The plaintiff admits that certain complaints were made and that the subjects of the complaints were remedied.   The defendants also testified that they complained to the city of New Britain prior to the notice to quit, however, the more credible evidence suggests that the complaints and requests for inspection were made after service of the notice to quit.   Regardless, the results of a housing inspection conducted October 5, 2010 by the city of New Britain were entered as a full exhibit.

DISCUSSION

Connecticut General Statutes § 47a-7(a)(1) requires a landlord to comply with all applicable building and housing codes as materially affect health and safety.  Ficocelli v. Sokolovsky, 2009 Ct.Sup. 3561, Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland, Housing Session at Rockville, Docket No. CV 08 4010443 (Feb. 17, 2009, Sferrazza, J.).

When a tenant has in good faith requested the landlord make repairs to the tenant's dwelling unit, the landlord “shall ․ (2) make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition ․” Conn. Gen.Stat. 47a-7(a)(2).  Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn.App. 444, 454, 547 A.2d 935 (1988);  Liu v. Kukick, 2010 Ct. Sup. 6565, Superior Court, Judicial District of New London, Housing Session, Docket No. CV21-017962 (March 3, 2010, Young, J.).   Additionally, Connecticut General Statutes § 47a-7(a)(4) requires the landlord to “ ․ maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating and other facilities ․”

“Courts which have considered the relationship between General Statutes §§ 47a-7 and 47a-4a have uniformly concluded that where the premises have been rendered uninhabitable ․ the tenant is relieved from the obligation to pay rent and may raise the uninhabitability of the apartment as a defense to a summary process action based on nonpayment of rent ․ Whether the premises is uninhabitable to the extent that the tenant is relieved of the obligation to pay rent depends on the facts of each individual case and whether the uninhabitability is caused by the tenant.”  (Citations omitted.)   Housing Authority v. Williams, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. SPH 92006-65824 (October 8, 1992, Holzberg, J.).

Connecticut General Statutes § 47a-4a establishes, essentially, that no rent is due for any period during which the landlord has failed to comply with the responsibilities indicated in Subsection (a) of 47a-7 if that noncompliance renders the premises unfit or uninhabitable.  Carpentieri v. Gayle, 2009 Ct.Sup. 5831, 47 Conn. L. Rptr. 555, Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford, Housing Session, Docket No. HDSP-151240 (April 16, 2009, Gilligan, J.).

Assuming, arguendo, that all of the violations found by the inspector in October 2010 were present in the subject premises in June and July 2010, the violations do not rise to a level sufficient to excuse the payment of rent.   The defendant has failed to prove this special defense by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

The defendants' second special defense sounds in retaliatory eviction, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §§ 47a-20 and 47a-33.   However, retaliation is not a defense to a summary process action brought because of nonpayment of rent.   Klobocista v. Zappia, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Docket No. HDSP-141135 (April 27, 2007, Bentivegna, J.);   Bordiere v. Ramirez, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, Housing Session, Docket No. SPN 99 1031769 (December 23, 1999, Tanzer, J.) (28 Conn. L. Rptr. 359);  Smith v. Worsham, SPNH 8207-2132 (September 8, 1982);  Jacobson v. Johnson, SPNH 8207-2006 (September 8, 1982);  Mordecai v. Botwe-Asamoah, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Docket No. 8208-2228 (September 29, 1982, Foti, J.);  Maretz v. Apuzzo, 34 Conn.Sup. 594, 597 (1977).   Accordingly, in the instant matter, this special defense is inapplicable to an action based solely upon nonpayment of rent.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the following:

The plaintiff has proven the non-payment claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence;

The defendants have failed to prove their special defenses by a fair preponderance of the evidence;

Judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff.   The Court orders a final stay of execution through November 21, 2010.

By the Court

Hon. Vernon D. Oliver

Oliver, Vernon D., J.