O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez

53 Citing cases

  1. First Federal Bank v. Whitney Devel. Corp.

    237 Conn. 679 (Conn. 1996)   Cited 23 times
    Reversing judgment granting execution of judgment of ejectment rendered against party tenant in possession of mortgaged property following judgment of strict foreclosure

    Our task of statutory construction is guided further by the fact that "§ 47a-23c is a remedial statute intended to benefit elderly, blind and physically disabled tenants." O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367, 373, 576 A.2d 469 (1990); see 23 H.R. Proc., Pt. 18, 1980 Sess., p. 5327, remarks of Representative Richard D. Tulisano; 23 S. Proc., Pt. 5, 1980 Sess., pp. 1393-94, remarks of Senator Clifton A. Leonhardt. As such, the statute must be "construed liberally in favor of those whom the legislature intended to benefit" in order to effect the legislative intent. O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, supra, 373; see Herbert S. Newman Partners, P.C. v. CFC Construction Ltd. Partnership, supra, 236 Conn. 757; Kaufman v. Zoning Commission, 232 Conn. 122, 140, 653 A.2d 798 (1995).

  2. Housing Authority of the Town v. Russotto

    2006 Ct. Sup. 5538 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    Id., 610. See also O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367, 372 (1990). In this case, the Tenant became a tenant at sufferance on June 27, 2005, when he was served with the notice to quit.

  3. Waterbury Twin v. Renal Treatment Centers-Northeast

    292 Conn. 459 (Conn. 2009)   Cited 40 times
    In Waterbury Twin, LLC, the plaintiff landlords served a notice to quit for nonpayment of rent on the defendant tenants and filed a summary process complaint.

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367, 372, 576 A.2d 469 (1990). Our analysis of the plaintiffs' claims begins with the Appellate Court's decision in Housing Authority v. Hird, supra, 13 Conn. App. 150.

  4. Little River Ltd. Liability Corp. v. Zacijek

    1996 Ct. Sup. 5268 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1996)

    (a)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, this section applies to any tenant who resides in a building or complex consisting of five or more separate dwelling units or resides in a mobile manufactured home park and who is either: (A) Sixty-two years of age or older, . . . The defendant is more than sixty-two years old (Ex. A). Further, under O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367, 374 (1990), he is a tenant for purposes of C.G.S. § 47a-23c. In finding that a tenant at sufferance was a tenant under C.G.S. § 47a-23c, the Supreme Court noted that "a tenant at sufferance arises when a person who came into possession of the land rightfully continues in possession wrongfully after his right thereto has terminated."

  5. Strickland v. Capp Industries, Inc. (In re Capp Industries, Inc.)

    257 B.R. 119 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2001)

    DISCUSSION          Under Connecticut law, "[a] tenant at sufferance is not obligated to pay rent but only the reasonable rental value of the premises as use and occupancy.... A tenancy at sufferance arises when a person who came into possession of land rightfully continues in possession wrongfully after his right thereto has terminated...." O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367, 371-372, 576 A.2d 469 (1990). See also Commissioner of Transportation v. Dock, Inc., 1995 WL 779098, 4 (Conn.Super.1995).

  6. Brook Run Dev. Corp. v. Noon

    AC 46873 (Conn. App. Ct. Jan. 28, 2025)

    The court noted that the defendant, as a protected tenant under § 47a-23c, could not be evicted in the absence of ''good cause,'' even as a tenant at sufferance. The court accordingly concluded that the defendant's failure to pay a fair rent increase constitutes good cause, citing our Supreme Court's ruling in O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367, 576 A.2d 469 (1990). The court therefore rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and this appeal followed.

  7. Cref, LLC v. Puskarz

    HDSP180219 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jul. 8, 2016)

    In so doing, the court has been guided by the fact that, as originally drafted, § 47a-23c was identified as " 'a remedial statute intended to benefit elderly, blind and physically disabled tenants.' O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367, 373, 576 A.2d 469 (1990); see 23 H.R. Proc., Pt. 18, 1980 Sess., p. 5327, remarks of Representative Richard D. Tulisano; 23 S. Proc., Pt. 5, 1980 Sess., pp. 1393-94, remarks of Senator Clifton A. Leonhardt. As such, the statute must be 'construed liberally in favor of those whom the legislature intended to benefit; in order to effect the legislative intent.

  8. Norling v. Anthony

    2001 Ct. Sup. 217 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    "A tenancy at stifferance arises when a person who came into possession of land rightfully continues in possession wrongfully after his right thereto has terminated." O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367, 372 (1990); Welk v. Bidwell, 136 Conn. 603, 608-09 (1950). "The mere act of holding over does not create a new tenancy.

  9. Rosen Realty Associates v. Stern

    1997 Ct. Sup. 6452 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997)

    The predicate for the court's action was a failure to produce evidence that established a landlord-tenant relationship either directly or circumstantially. See O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367, 372 (1990). No mention of the court's action appears in the plaintiffs' brief.

  10. Commissioner of Transp. v. the Dock

    1995 Ct. Sup. 13336 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    A trial court is not obligated to follow dicta nor is it bound by the dissent of Justice Borden in Bridgeport v. Barbour-Daniel Electronics, Inc.. This court does agree that the current status of the law in the State of Connecticut is that there is no eviction for non payment of use and occupancy. The final argument made by the plaintiff concerns the case of O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez 215 Conn. 367 (1990). The issue in O'Brien Properties was whether a tenant at sufferance is entitled to the "good cause protection" from an eviction in a summary process action under Connecticut General Statutes § 47a-23c The Supreme Court rejected the trial court's conclusion that a tenant at sufferance does not pay rent and therefore the payment of use and occupancy does not give the defendant recourse to the protection of the summary process statute.