"The Appellate Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment on November 10, 1998. Ferber v. Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. , 51 Conn. App. 20, 719 A.2d 921, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 952, 723 A.2d 324 (1998) ...."Since approximately July, 1993, [the defendant] has paid rent to VST for both plants pursuant to the rent formula in the lease amendments, as opposed to the rent formula contained in the original leases.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Martinez , 51 Conn. App. 59, 66–67, 719 A.2d 1213, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 952, 723 A.2d 324 (1998). First, we address the argument that the affidavit did not provide probable cause to believe that the items sought to be seized would be found in the defendant's residence four months following the commission of the home invasion.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mordowanec, 259 Conn. 94, 110, 788 A.2d 48, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 2369, 153 L.Ed.2d 189 (2002); State v. Martinez, 51 Conn. App. 59, 66, 719 A.2d 1213, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 952, 723 A.2d 324 (1998). The defendant maintains that the search warrant (1) failed to establish probable cause of criminal activity and (2) failed to describe the property to be searched with sufficient particularity.