2011 Ct. Sup. 4204
No. BRSP-073329Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield, Housing Session at Bridgeport
January 19, 2011

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]


This summary process action was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for nonpayment of rent. The defendant has moved to dismiss the action based on its claim that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because of a defect in the notice to quit. The defendant alleges that the notice to quit does not properly describe the premises as required by general statutes Section 47a-23(b) because it does not contain a diagram showing the proportion of 269 Fairfield Ave. occupied by the defendant.

“A motion to dismiss . . . properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court. A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted), Cox v. Aiken, 278 Conn. 204, 210-11, 897 A.2d 71 (2006).

“Connecticut General Statutes Section 47a-23(b) sets forth the form of the notice to quit with which there must be a substantial compliance.” Sandrew v. Pequot Drug, Inc., 4 Conn.App. 627 (1985). “It is recommended that where there is a commercial lease the exact language used in a commercial lease to describe the premises should be used in the notice to quit 1275 Silver Lane Associates, LLC v. Teal Landscaping, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, docket no. HDSP 137467, (October 3, 2006, Bentivegna, J).

In this case, the language used in the notice to quit exactly mirrors the language used in the lease. The purpose of the notice to quit is to give notice to the tenant that it must vacate the subject premises. “A dismissal is required whenever an address is misdescribed in a notice to quit unless, despite the error, the CT Page 4205 tenant is served at the correct address, and the misdescription is so minor that a reasonable person would not be confused by it.”1275 Silver Lane Associates, LLC v. Teal Landscaping supra. Here, there is no question that the tenant was served at the correct address with the additional language from the lease describing the premises. The failure to include the map with the notice to quit, in this matter, is so minor that a reasonable person would not be confused by it.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.

CT Page 4206