300 STATE, LLC v. DIARMUID HANAFIN DBA HANAFIN’S.

2011 Ct. Sup. 22871
No. KNL CV10-5014028SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London at New London
November 1, 2011

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
LEUBA, JTR.

This case was tried to the court on this date with both parties well represented by counsel.

From the evidence, including reasonable and logical inferences from the same, and taking into account the court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, the following facts are found.

At the time the plaintiff acquired title to the property at 300/310 State Street, New London, the defendant was occupying over 2,000 square feet of the property and had been paying rent and other related charges without complaint. At some point in time he stopped making the payments. Meetings were held. Notices were given. The defendant acknowledged the obligation to make payments as he had done in the past. That conduct of the defendant is evidence of some agreement to make payments for the items involved in the prior payments. After a demand in December 2009, the defendant in January 2010 made a lump sum payment of $10,000. No payments have been made since that time. An eviction proceeding was instituted by the plaintiff. The defendant vacated the premises in July 2010. Billing notices were sent itemizing the various charges which were claimed by the plaintiff under the agreement. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 6 7.) One of those notices (Exhibit 6) contains a claim for attorneys fees of $1,072.50, but there was no evidence to support such a charge.

The defendant is found to be indebted to the plaintiff for the occupancy of the leased premises, including the related fees included in the agreement found to have existed, in the amount of $46,402.49, under both the First and Second Counts of the complaint. No evidence was introduced as to the alleged Special Defense of the defendant. Both in the plaintiff’s claims for relief and in closing argument there was a request for statutory interest for withholding money due. The plaintiff asked for 8% interest. The granting of interest is discretionary. No written agreement with respect to interest is in CT Page 22872 evidence. The defendant did meet with the plaintiff’s representative. He made a substantial lump sum payment. There was no evidence as to any conduct of the defendant which could give the court any indication of the defendant’s intent or of his ability to pay at any particular time. Considering the facts of the case, no interest will be added by the court.

Judgment may enter for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $46,402.49, together with court costs.

CT Page 22873