Thomas Breen file photo
Judge Stone: “You have to follow the statutes very precisely."
A New Haven judge dismissed an eviction lawsuit over an error in the landlord’s paperwork, allowing a mom and her two kids to stay, for now, in their three-bedroom Elm Street apartment.
The case came before state Superior Court Judge Alayna Stone in New Haven’s housing court Thursday afternoon.
In a third-floor courtroom at 121 Elm St., Stone ruled the landlord’s notice to quit was defective due to its failure to specify the tenant’s first-floor unit at 480 Elm St.
“You have to follow the statutes very precisely,” Stone insisted. In her decision, she cited the heightened standards imposed by summary process, a streamlined legal process used for eviction cases in Connecticut.
In order to restart eviction proceedings, landlord Meiqiang Xie will have to serve a new notice to quit.
The now-dismissed case dates back to June 10, when the landlord filed an eviction lawsuit against the tenant for allegedly not paying her monthly rent of $1,600 in March, April, and May.
In her June 13 response, the tenant wrote that she moved into the apartment in October 2024. From the very start, she wrote, the unit had roaches, mice, rats, leaks, and unsafe openings. The landlord lowered her rent to $1,500 due to those problems, she said. She also wrote that she had contacted 211 for help catching up on rent.
Attorney Amy Eppler-Epstein and law students Noah Riley and Ryan Mathis-Tien, who work for the New Haven Legal Assistance Association, represented the tenant. At Thursday’s court hearing, they presented a motion to dismiss the underlying eviction case based on the error in the notice to quit.
In opening remarks, Riley contended that by not specifying which of the two units in the Elm Street house was subject to the eviction action, the notice to quit did not comply with Connecticut General Statute Section 47a-23(b), which says in relevant part: “The notice shall be in writing substantially in the following form: ‘I (or we) hereby give you notice that you are to quit possession or occupancy of the (land, building, apartment, or dwelling unit…), now occupied by you at (here insert the address, including apartment number or other designation, as applicable).’ ”
Xie pushed back, arguing that the letter had been delivered to the right tenant.
“I met with the marshal,” he said. “He placed the notice underneath [the tenant’s] interior door.” He pointed the court to the bottom of the letter, where the marshal completed the return of service section confirming the notice had been served. In the address box, the marshal specified that it was delivered to the first floor.
“We’re not arguing about the service of the notice to quit,” Riley countered. “Case law affirms that the apartment number has to be specified in [the body of] a notice to quit.”
While it seemed like a small paperwork error, in her decision, Stone warned that had an eviction gone forward, the omission could have led the marshal to remove everyone from the house, not just the first-floor tenants.
In a phone interview after the hearing, Eppler-Epstein echoed Stone’s concern and added another. “If you don’t say the unit, how does the person getting served know whether they mean me or the upstairs tenant?” she asked. “It’s confusing and misleading.”
That concern, she added, becomes especially important in cases where notices are addressed to Jane or John Does, placeholders used by landlords when they suspect tenants not on the lease may be living in their property.
In addition to delaying any action to evict, the decision also secured more time for negotiations with the landlord.
“We have been very clear with the landlord that what we really want is for him to live up to his responsibilities and make necessary repairs,” said Eppler-Epstein.
According to a June 23 report from the Livable City Initiative (LCI), the city department that addresses complaints of unsafe or unhealthy housing conditions, an inspection of the Elm Street apartment found a damp ceiling, vermin and rodent infestation, holes in the exterior wall, and accumulated trash and debris. LCI ordered the landlord to correct those violations, and obtain a residential rental license for the property, within 30 days.
According to Eppler-Epstein, her client’s first choice is to stay in the apartment and pay her rent, provided the repairs are made.
“It’s not that he hasn’t done anything,” she emphasized. “He’s put out a lot of traps, but [rodents and vermin] are still getting in.”
Negotiations have been productive so far, Eppler-Epstein said, and she believes Xie has shown a willingness to make repairs. She is hopeful that they will reach a resolution.
Xie did not respond to a request for comment by the publication time of this article. The judge’s order, dismissing the eviction lawsuit, can be found here.