Davenport’s Dunn, Santana at virtual court hearing.
John Sullo left prison and returned to his home — or what he thought was his home.
The landlord believed otherwise.
The matter ended up in court, where a judge decided Sullo had no right to the premises. But the judge did arrange for Sullo to get his belongings back — which also became part of a legal dispute.
Both Sullo and his landlord — the owners of the Davenport Residences subsidized elderly-and-disabled apartment complex on Putnam Avenue in Hamden — argued these matters in two hearings in state housing court this week. The hearings involved two cases, one an eviction action against Sullo, the other Sullo’s attempt to get back into the apartment he used to sleep in, if not to live, at least to retrieve his stuff.
Sullo was released from prison in January after serving time for assaulting a police officer and driving a motor vehicle without insurance, among other offenses.
He went back to Davenport, where he said he’d been living. He claimed that someone on the property locked him out of the apartment by stealing his key off of his key ring.
The first hearing took place Tuesday. At the hearing, Sullo was asking Avallone to order Davenport Residences to stop preventing him from having access to the premises.
Davenport Residences, represented by attorney Andrea Dunn, told Judge Anthony Avallone that Sullo was never actually a resident of the apartment.
Sullo stated in his complaint that he had previously lived in an apartment with a man who has dementia. He stated he had been living in the apartment to help the man and had filed paperwork to become a tenant.
A Davenport Residences representative, Enrique Santana, told the court that Sullo “was never approved for residency.” He added that he had met with Sullo “several times” before the Residences moved forward with eviction.
John Kerpen, the conservator for the disabled tenant, testified in court that, contrary to a claim by Sullo, no one ever changed the locks of the apartment and “never took anything from Sullo.”
Claiming he causes problems on the property, Davenport sought to keep Sullo off the premises, period.
Sullo remained adamant: “I want my stuff out of the apartment, and I want my mail,” he said. “I need my mail.”
Judge Avallone ruled in favor of the landlord by denying Sullo’s application to enter the residence.
That left open the second issue before the court: Davenport’s motion to formally evict Sullo from the premises.
That second issue was considered at the second virtual hearing this week, which was held Thursday before judge Claudia Baio.
Dunn told the court that Sullo’s presence was “quite disturbing to some residents” and that Sullo had interfered with the disabled tenant’s healthcare and caused other safety problems.
The conservator found out that Sullo was residing in the apartment only after Sullo complained to the company that was caregiving for the tenant about “inferior service.”
Sullo reiterated that the disabled tenant had asked Sullo to take care of him and, when he went back, was told that he could stay. He added that he was never notified of the complaints against him while he was in prison.
Sullo is living out of his car.
Judge Baio said that because he acknowledged that he was never on the initial lease, there was “no basis to dispute the judgment” to keep him off the premises. And she granted execution of the eviction.
But she also gave Sullo 15 days to move out his belongings, which she ordered Davenport Residences to allow. So as not to sow “confusion and disagreement,” Judge Baio also added that Sullo will be accompanied by a police officer in doing so.
In a conversation outside of court, Sullo said that he plans to seek a lawyer to file additional actions against the residence so as not to be homeless during the current pandemic.
Tell Sullo to brandish a machete and Avallone will grant a stay and let him back in!