Opinion
No. HDSP-127220
September 12, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, Hartford East Apartments, operates an apartment building at 886 Main Street in East Hartford, Connecticut (hereinafter, the "Premises"). The tenants, living on the premises, are elderly or handicapped or both. The defendant, Sondra Easton, is a tenant on the premises, residing in Unit 411.
The defendant, who is diagnosed with a schizo-affective disorder, stabbed and seriously wounded a health-care worker who was present on the premises on the morning of December 8, 2003. Following this incident, the plaintiff began evition proceedings against the defendant. The plaintiff alleges that its tenants and employees are all subject to serious and immediate danger, posed by the conduct of the defendant.
The plaintiff asserts that it has proven that the defendant's behavior constitutes a serious nuisance under Connecticut law. Therefore, the plaintiff requests judgment for possession enter in favor of the plaintiff.
In paragraph 3 of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant's right to occupy has terminated due to a violation of Section 47a-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes Serious Nuisance, and paragraph 23c(6)(a) and 23c(6)(b) of the lease because of a stabbing incident that took place on or about December 8, 2003. The defendant argues that this statement does not allege facts that fall within the definition of serious nuisance.
Serious Nuisance is defined as:
"(A) inflicting bodily harm upon another tenant or the landlord or threatening to inflict such harm with the present ability to effect the harm and under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that such a threat will be carried out, (B) substantial and wilful destruction of part of the dwelling unit or premises, (C) conduct which presents an immediate and serious danger to the safety of other tenants or the landlord, or (D) using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for prostitution or the illegal sale of drugs . . ." (C.G.S. Sec 47a-15).
The parties agree that the defendant stabbed a person on the premises and that the victim was a health care worker. The testimony establishes that the health care worker was neither a tenant nor an employee of the landlord. A witness testified that he saw the defendant with the knife after the stabbing occurred.
Following the stabbing incident, the defendant was served with notice to quit possession and a notice of termination. (Exhibits B and C). In the notice of termination, the defendant was given the opportunity to object, in writing, to the commencement of the eviction proceedings against her. (Exhibit C). In her response, the defendant claimed that the victim's behavior "tormented and [sic] antagonized" her. (Defendant Reply to Notice, Jan. 2, 2004)
The plaintiff asserts that the victim was forced to defend his life against the defendant, a woman with whom he had no relationship and that he was endangered because his ordinary and pleasant conduct had the effect of tormenting the defendant. Further, the plaintiff argues that instead of admitting that she was in the wrong, the defendant attempted to shift the blame for the incident on the innocent victim whom she sent to the hospital.
The conduct of the defendant, the stabbing of a person at the premises, constitutes a serious nuisance as defined in C.G.S. Sec. 47a-15(C) because it presents an immediate and serious danger to the safety of the other tenants and the landlord. This is true even though the victim was neither a tenant on the premises, nor employed by the landlord. Although, the non-tenant health care worker was the ultimate victim, anyone could have been the target of the defendant's violence. The defendant's conduct was based on a very abnormal perception of the world around her. Consequently, every tenant, tenant's guest or employee, landlord or landlord's employee is reasonable to fear harm by the defendant.
The nature of the premises only exacerbates the immediacy and seriousness of the danger caused by the defendant's violent behavior. First, the defendant's fellow tenants are elderly and/or mentally handicapped. Unlike the health care worker who was victimized, these individuals lack the physical or mental capacity to fend off a violent attack. Finally, there is nothing that these at-risk individuals can do to reduce their risk of being attacked by the defendant, who responds to mild, friendly behavior with violence.
The reaction of the defendant to the incident would likely cause feelings of anger, fear, sadness and frustration to the other tenants. For the average person, this would be a troublesome burden, but not likely to produce a violent episode. However, the tenants at these premises are not the typical tenants. Considering the emotional state of the defendant and perception of her surroundings and a hair-trigger violent reaction, the situation adds up to a great risk of life and limb that cannot be ignored by this Court.
In a very similar case before the Superior Court, Housing Authority of City of Stamford v. Morrow, 1995 WL 348025 (Conn.Super. 1995), a tenant with a mental disability assaulted a fellow tenant with a butcher knife in the hallway of a multi-family housing project. The plaintiff in Housing Authority of City of Stamford v. Morrow sought the eviction of the tenant because the stabbing incident violated her lease. The court found that the defendant's conduct, the knife assault, constituted a serious nuisance as defined in C.G.S. Sec. 47a-15.
The defendant-tenant in Housing Authority argued that the equities should be balanced in her favor, namely because (1) she was elderly; (2) had a mental disorder: (3) her eviction was based on that mental disorder; and (4) eviction would leave her homeless. There, the court held that the landlord's equitable considerations outweighed those of the tenant, since; (1) the landlord was obligated to enforce the terms of its lease as well as the requirements of the Connecticut General Statutes, for the purpose of providing quiet enjoyment to the other tenants on the premises; and (2) the tenant had an equal obligation of good faith and fair dealing to the landlord.
In so holding, the court noted that in such a situation, C.G.S. Sec. 47a-15 does not require the corrective opportunity offered by a "Kapa" notice (citing to Kapa Associates v. Flores, 35 Conn. Sup. 643, 647 (1981) and that "the landlord has the obligation to enforce the terms of the leases of other tenants and to provide an atmosphere of safety, tranquility and enjoyment. The actions of the defendant were in violation of the atmosphere." Id. Here, the plaintiff did provide the defendant with a "Kapa" notice prior to the issuance of the notice to quit possession.
The holding in Housing Authority of City of Stamford v. Morrow is analogous to the case at hand. Here, the defendant attacked a health care worker who was employed by one of the tenants. Though neither a tenant nor the landlord was attacked, the defendant's behavior is so serious that it ended the sense of safety and tranquility enjoyed by the other tenants.
The defendant also asserts that the plaintiff must make reasonable accommodations for the defendant's disability. Ann Merwin, manager of the premises, testified that she did not know of any reasonable accommodation the plaintiff could make to alleviate the defendant's potential violence. When the tenant stabs a person with no provocation and no prior warning it is hard to imagine what accommodation the plaintiff could make that would assure the safety of the other occupants of the apartment complex. Apparently, the conduct of the defendant was a result of a change in medication. This is a medical issue that is completely beyond the control of the plaintiff. The safety and well being of the tenants at these premises are paramount in this case.
Judgment for immediate possession of the premises occupied by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.